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

God is a very short word. And as Heinlein told us, very short words are very difficult to define.

The reason for this is that short words are closer to primitive grunts than longer words which have been built up out of concepts attached to very short words. The closer we come to primitive grunts, the closer we come to pre-verbal, primordial concepts (if such things as concepts can be said to exist without language.) Such primitive ideas are likely to be very vast in scope, messy, and hard to deal with in a reductive way.

From an extreme outsider's viewpoint, one might say that God is mankind's way of saying that Mankind is important. After all, if a being great enough to create . . . well . . . everything is concerned with what such puny things are doing on a moment to mement basis then they must be very important puny creatures.

God is a recognition of Order that implies Intent. As such, there is an instinctive recognition that science is an enemy of God. (That is not to suggest here that science is an enemy of dogma, to do so would be to embark on an entirely different sort of discussion.) Science is an enemy of God because it suggests that those things that look like intent are simply the workings of a machine of sorts, each cog engages a sprocket on another cog wheel. This suggests that the order we percieve is simply the inevitable outcome of innumerable mindless factors, beyond our ability to understand, in totality, yet comprehensible enough if we examine each tiny piece and its relation to each other piece it contacts.

Doesn't the concept of a machine imply the presence of a machine maker?

Not at all, we were wrong to use the word 'machine.' It might be better to compare each piece of the world to a grain of sand. Each grain of sand is unique, shaped by similar but differing forces and circumstances. Yet the nature of the universe is such that no matter how dissimilar an individual grain is we can predict what will happen when we pour out a bucket of sand. We can describe that shape of the pile of sand, even before we turn over the bucket, because there are impersonal and mindless forces at work on every particle. No matter which grain falls upon whatever others, the result will be as predicted.

We can go further and explain what it is that makes up a grain of sand. We can examine it and determine its history and provenance. We can describe its physical and chemical makeup and build imitation grains of sand, either up from the smallest components or down from larger ones.

Doesn't this discussion of pouring out sand still require the presence of a pourer?

The scientist might say it doesn't, he might say it does, or he might say it doesn't matter. The fact is that science is concerned with how things happen, it assumes that there must be a reason and proceeds to find one. Science never really considers why things are the way they are and therein lies the essence of the question of God. Science doesn't threaten God, it ignores God. God is irrelevant to science. (This is not to say that God is irrelevant to scientists.) If there is Intent behind Order, science doesn't care.

Vonnegut gave us God the Utterly Indiferent, saying that it doesn't matter what we do, God simply doesn't care. This, Vonnegut seemed to say, represented the ultimate evolution of Man's exploration of the nature of the Universe. Of course! If scince doesn't care about Intent and science explaines everything, then Intent doesn't matter!
The Universe is just there! If we must have a God then God doesn't care. Everything just is. Everywhere everything is all just like it is everywhere else; there is no sign of God because there is no sign of preferential treatment. There is no indication anywhere of Intent.

This is, perhaps, not so great a step from Spinoza's affirmation that God created the Universe out of His Own Substance and was totally consumed by the process. Or, perhaps Spinoza meant that all that we are is simply a part of the everything that is God. There is no distinction between man and God, something like a bee not knowing that the Hive has a purpose and that no single bee can embody that purpose though every bee is a partially disposible part of that purpose.

Heinlein, again, gave us this possiblility with the phrase, "Thou Art God" (taken from The Bible though it was.) Each of us expressing this thought toward each other with a sense of discovery much as I once heard an Eastern Orthodox Priest exclaim as he entered a town, "He is arisen!" It is a message of revelation and testimony. For the priest it was clearly a message saying, "There are miracles! I, personally, have seen the hand of God!" For Heinlein's characters, it was a revelation that our intent is a part of the Intent of the Universe. Each of us is a holographic particle of the whole with all the possibilities that that implies.

The earliest religions that recognized many gods also recognized greater and lesser gods, older and younger gods, stronger and weaker gods. A simple person prayed to a lesser god because that god, having less to take up his time, would be more likely to grant a simple request from a simple person from a smaller, more localized pool of worshipers. A complex person would choose a major god because his needs were greater and required greater powers to grant his wishes and desires. But, it was clear to all that the world and all that surrounded it (the Universe) was a complex place. If things could be grouped into categories, there was a god guarding that category. If things followed cycles then there must be greater gods enforcing their progress.

From these primitive observations, it is easy to find a progression to modern faiths. But, it is not possible to explain how faiths vary by assuming blind, mechanical processes. The reason for this is not because such differences could not happen by chance. The reason is that the differences show too much reasoning.

Religions are the outgrowth of such reasoning, the result of a 'perception of Truth.' That is to say that someone percieves an ordering principle, a personality, a method, that he feels explains why things are the way they are and predicts how acceptance of this "revelation" will alter the world for the better or the worse. This person gathers family and followers until it is formalized and standardized out of the necessities of management, not everyone can be taught by 'the master.' He doesn't have time enough. He has other things to do. He's other where, other when. Talk to the priest. Read the book. Live the life. Seek and ye shall find. Believe and you shall be saved. Walk in his foot steeps and you cannot fail to follow the path.

Faith is the result of a desire for the answer to the question "Why?" "God" is the answer. You understand who God is, don't you? Let me tell you.

Would you like to buy a flower?

What kinda flower? How much are they? Where did you get them? Are they your flowers? And wouldn't it be better just to let them grow? Take a picture of the flowers and sell that. Or paint one. Hell anything to keep you busy and take your mind off all that (see above).

As determined and persausive argument as Barton's article was, I have my doubts. It appeared to me that the arguments were based on a false premise.

In the first paragraph there is the point that because the word 'God' is such a small word it is difficult to define. Really, I see no logic in that statement. But that may just be me. Here is how I see it: The term God is difficult to define, not because of it's phonetical or languagistic simplicity, but because the concept of God is a difficult one to define.

Since we have touched the subject, and it being one of my personal favorites: Has anyone observed how complex older languages are compared to our 'modern' ones? Compare English to Greek. Greek is by far the greater tongue, though more difficult, it can express more. The further we go back in time, it would seem, the languages become more complex. It is common belief that all languages came from one language. This langauge, though we have no documents to prove it exsisted, there are words that even now link nearly every language together. My point, the further back in time we go, the more complex the language. I find it hard to believe a so called science that proclaims man developed over the last million years or so and we have every language we know of stems from one main complex language. If our pre-developed human ancestors were more primitive, they must have been pretty civilized to be able to achieve one beautiful complex language(which would say otherwise about their intelligence) and an even greater achievement is to use this language universaly.

Let us say our human ancestors did achieve this in earth's prehistory. Let us say early mankind did develop the wit and deplomacy to devise a complex language and to press it's use worldwide. However, if humans were that advanced to achieve so great a deed, then where did they go? If they were advanced enough to have the root of all known languages where are their other achievements? We have no archelogical findings that indicate any sort of evidence of advanced humankind beyond the last 10,000 years.
Something, I believe, is wrong with our timeline, which would indicate something was wrong with the science by which we achieved our timeline.

Next point,

Barton's article goes on state that science is the enemy of God. Prehaps the science he seems to be refering is. Which I can only assume he is refering to the Theory of Evolution. Evolution, excuse me, Macro-evolution is a theory. This theory is a venom to clear thinking because it has become a dogma far more pig-headed than any church belief. Honestly, has anyone seen the big bang? Where and how humans emerged from the sea? It is a simple theory, no more provable, and indeed, less valid than the creation science arguments in all respect to logic. Evolution, is a theory, but it has evolved now to something more, it has become a philosophy.

Vonnegut, then, was a fool, to say what he did. In light of what knowledge has been given us by the observations of the jews God does care very much. If God is what he says he is, Barton, as much as you may try to define him you will never be able to. I wonder how many people have actually tried to make contact with God. God said we could talk to him right? How many people have tried? About 1 billion people. That's what? 1/6th of the world's population? It apparently works for them, and I don't think it would be entirely fair to rule out the possibility that some of these people could actually be making contact with this higher being. Until you yourself have tried to make contact, you cannot fairly or rightly say or know for yourself what God is and how he works. Think about it, if you never talk to someone how can you know, even a glimmer of what they think when they are not speaking?

With all due respect to our wonderful scientists of our world, science is merely a collection of information and data. In essence: 'this happened because I did this' and so on. Really the interpretation of data is all relative to the individual. Technically, science should not assert any theory but should be left alone for what it is. Data and observation is all that science is. You see, Science has no philosophical voice: it is only what it is. And there is no evidence, ie. direct observation against God that we know of.

Let's look at the flipside of this: What if God didn't care about science? What if science really doesn't matter?

Now your probably wondering what I'm getting at. I'm saying that for some science has taken the place of God. It has become the object that man exalts himself in self-importance. We humans have been blind in thinking science has any sort of answer. Science has no voice, only observations. The things observed are the only things that really matter. This doesn't mean we should not consider theories. We should, of course, consider them all equally. But they should only be approved by true science.

I think I've seen this conversation before
http://www.h2g2.com/F15357&thread=75975&skip=0&show=20
(Check it out both side here should find plenty of ammo in the early postings the forum linked to).

What about them flowers? You selling me one or not. I ain't buying any of this other crap.

I have a few argumentative tidbits for Murdo on behalf of Barton:
A) I don't believe that greek is really a more complex language than any of our modern languages in any meaningful way. Maybe greek appears to be complex because its structured a bit differently than english, with more conjugation and stuff--but i think a greek speaker would be as equally confused and perplexed with english as we are with greek. in any case, both modern english and greek, and indeed all languages, have certain universal aspects to them that a linguist could explain to you...there's really no such thing as one language being more complex than another (at least to any great extent).

B) Barton wan't arguing that science is the enemy of god... half of the whole article was explaining how the two dont relate to each other in that way, so really you were in agreement (sort of) with Barton on that point.

I think Barton's point was that difficult to define concepts tend to be the first ones we get, and so the first to be put into words. So words like "I" and "good" and "bad" get created which we are unsure how to define, but use often.
Old tongues tend to have smaller vocabularies than modern ones. No word for 'roller coaster', for example. The initial language, if it existed, would have had a tiny vocab.
Lots of people have tried to make contact with God and failed too. Me, for one. Can you hear me say this, or is the 'no true scotsman' fallacy buzzing round your head too loudly?

Barton was talking about science generally, and God generally. IE, gods which create lightning have problems when science explains lightning without reference to a god. Gods that create rainbows and the mulitplicity of languagee have problems when science explains both without reference to a God.

btw, what is this thing I hear of called 'true science'?

Unsubscribe..? Unsubscri...Oh there it is. Bye.

Well, did you know that the Bible actually makes statements;like the world is a sphere long before man discovered that it is round! It is scientificaly correct and therefore must prove something, and for those who think God is to blame for all the mess in the world.... no way Jose ... it is a fallen angel by the name of Satan who is the root ofall evil and he just loves it when God gets blamed for all the misery, so stop blaming God all of you out there, Man has been given the choice, good or bad so chose guys! and when God actually puts an end to Satan´s reign, as is promised in the book of Revelation then we will all know of Gods greatness, he is not taking his time as for Him one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day, therfore the book of Genesis could quite easily span over a few thousand years, think about it, .............

First of all, I disagree whole-heartedly with Mustache. As much as you may believe that Greek isn't more complex, that is of one's own opinion. The only baffling thing for an ancient Greek in the learning of modern English would be the utter simplicity of our tongue. If one refuses to see the differences, they are shutting their eyes to the obvious. I mean no enmity toward Mustache, but it was an absurd suggestion to begin with.

Now, Mustache's second point is very much in the right. I humbly admit I was again going off the subject. And you have my thanks for the correction.

Now on to Lucinda's comments:

On the language bit again. It may very well be that older languages have smaller vocabularies. But think for a moment of how much less they had. A word for 'roller-coaster' would have not been needed. Technology creates the need for more words. The older languages have a broader range of words of the same concept(which are not few)that are more specific than most words of our english language. Greek has, if I remember correctly, about three different words for the differing ideas of 'love'. And from them there are many other more specific words.


Never for a moment did I assume that some people don't find God. All that I'm saying is that many do. And the very fact that, about 1/6th of the world's population says they have found something: it's enough to make me wonder...that is a big group of people to just call delusional. If it is something, it's big.

Allow me to clarify the whole 'true science' bit. Science has no voice one-way or the other. It is a neutral party that does no more than state what it is. It cannot presume something. It is often used to support a theory but other than that. Science is simple data and observation. This is what I call 'true science'.

If I am incorrect on this, would someone please tell me why.

Murdo, if we subscribe to the theory that language grew from simple to complex as opposed to the idea that language was somehow given full and complete, then it seems logical to assume that the shorter words, representing shorter sounds, came into being earlier and that these shorter words represent the earliest and most immediate concepts needed to be communicated. These early (and in some sense, primal) concepts then get over used from lack of more specific concepts.

Pick your choice of only 10 words and try to have a conversation with someone else. Very quickly you will find yourself creating new words to express other concepts. The most important and immediate concepts will be named first using the most simple and natural sounds.

When I said that God is a very short word, I did not stop to consider the word for god in other languages and that is the fallacy in my initial statement. But, English is a relatively young language and, as such, is really a hodge podge of other tongues flung together and finally coalescing into a unique form. The German 'Gott' likely share the same root for the English 'God.' But even in Hebrew, God's true name, which is never spoken (out of reverence,) has two syllables. That god, it is obvious from the Old Testament, was a 'new' god, in the sense that a single, all powerful god was revealed to the Hebrew people to displace the many gods worshiped by other peoples. Thus the language was in place before this God was made known.

(None of this really bears on Heinlein's assertion that the short words are harder to define. If you want to chew on something, metaphorically, consider the implications of the irregularity of the verb 'to be' under this hypothesis.)

I will not argue further on this point, however I do continue to suggest that the idea of god is primitive AND important to Man.

The idea that Greek is complex compared to English may be true, I can't say. I don't speak Greek. I CAN say that the world in general has long said that English is harder to learn than most European languages because is has so many irregularities.

There is a point to your argument though. It has been suggested that it is difficult to think about things that your language cannot express. That is, you thing in words. I don't quite agree with this idea, but I do agree that it is very hard to DISCUS what it is you are thinking about if you don't have words for the concepts. The fact that there is a word for a concept, merely suggests that there has been a need to discuss and it.

For instance, in English there is no word to describe the pleasure one feels when seeing something bad happen to someone else. There is such a word in German, Schadenfreude. This indicates that Germans had to discuss this concept. I know of no language that has a word to describe someone who tells the truth; that is, the opposite of 'liar.' Why doesn't it exist? Perhaps because it isn't considered a possibility for such a person to exist or perhaps because the meaning of the proper word has diverged (a possible candidate being 'prophet' --the word of God being, by definition, Truth.)

As has been suggested by Mustache, I did not intend to suggest that science is an enemy of God, rather I meant to say that science is PERCEIVED to be the enemy of God and that it is in fact concerned with another issue all together. However, the perception is enough to make science an enemy of God insofar as it is an enemy of dogma which presents itself as the word of god.

Ultimately, I suppose that what I was meaning to say in this discussion of "What is God?" is that the concept of god (lower case intentional) is or can be separate from the concept of God. The upper case 'God' is defined by religion, through religious writings and , ultimately, by dogma. This sort of open definition of the concept is necessarily heretical to anyone steeped in the belief that his religion has the definitive answer to the nature of God. To such a person there is no need for discussion, he can point to the answer already written out and subscribed to by authority.

The unfortunate situation happening today is that there are so many different choices to be made of what constitutes Truth that people of good and honest faith and intentions have opted to pick and choose among these different Truths to create their own personal Truth which is necessarily different from the next person's choice.

The whole issue of personal Truth does not exist to someone who lives such a Truth. Everything I say to suggest the relativity of Truth is inflammatory to someone who has faith that he knows what is True.

Stardancer cannot hear what I am saying here. What Stardancer hears is the voice of Satan, tempting him/her to abandon a fundamental brick of his/her own personal foundation. I am not interested in challenging Sardancer of debating biblical interpretation because I have no interest in his/her personal faith structure until it begins to limit/challenge my own world view.

(Stardancer have you ever read the New Testament in the original Greek or the Old Testament, in the original Hebrew and Aramaic. Have you ever held in your own hands the actual original writings that you revere or have you depended on what others have understood and misunderstood from copies of copies of the original texts. I have read enough different translations of these texts to know that we only know in general what was written originally. I will not argue with you about what the text says or what you interpret the text to say. There is no doubt that there is some real history in the Bible as well as some sincere belief. But there is also no doubt, in my mind, that there is much that can be debated, as to its provenance and origin. Please don't think that your Bible citations prove anything outside of their context.)


Lucinda seems to have understood what I was saying, which encourages me that I have not lost the ability to communicate. Thank you, Lucinda.

Murdo, where I think the problem lies is that you are using 'true' with 'science.' Please read my article "Truth, Reality, and Honesty" not because it is terribly important or "True" but because it points out the problem with using the word 'true' the way you have done. Science studies what is REAL (in my definition) What is True is so because it is postulated/asserted to be True. Truths are statements of faith. Science states what it has tested and measured.
However, if we accept your definition of "true science" then we are left with no way to speak about things that science cannot deal with and therefore must EFFECTIVELY assert does not exist.

Certainly, science must remain objective. That is why any proper scientist will say that our THEORY is supported by these observations and demonstrated by these mathematical predictions. No proper scientist (MY distinction and personal judgement) will say that there is PROOF of anything outside of the realm of logic or math.

Sir Arthur Eddington, the great scientist and mathematician, once said (approximately): "People think that once we have finished our study of '1' we will understand '2' because 1 + 1 = 2. They don't understand that we have yet to begin our study of '+'"

In the sense that any view on the organization of our Universe is ultimately based on some set of assumptions presumed to be True, science is every bit as much a religion as any other commonly recognized one. Of course you don't need to accept it as Truth.

The only Truth I ever present, insofar as I am able to control my intent, is that we each have our own take on what is True, what we say and what we mean is necessarily confused by the fact that we have different definitions for the same words and, worse, those definitions change even as we speak. Somehow, we still manage to communicate a portion of what we meant to say. In some way, there is a core to what we speak that remains objective and communicable.

Our paths cross and our lives interact.

"Do you want to buy a flower?" is the plaintive plea of robed Hari Krishna practitioners as they accosted travelers in airports and train stations in an attempt to get a contribution and a chance to explain their personal interpretation of the belief structure they tried to follow in a country unfamiliar with the social background in which it originated, I have adopted this phrase as my signal and warning to those who take time to read what I write here and elsewhere that I am both pathetic and assertive. That I present a different way of looking at things and that I am detaining you in your rush from here to there. That the fact that you stopped to read is, in itself, a sort of validation of my efforts. Thank you.

Actually the world is flat with four 'corners' according to the bible, starchaser...

yeah, sphere in greek (the surviving version of the Original scripture) meant 'all encompassing' or 'everything' or 'the four corners of the Earth' or 'all that is - from here to eternity' so to speak, but it was translated into english during the rennaisance and they didn't know about Onassis back then.
Never met a plaintive Hari-Krishni outside a court room. Flowers or no.
-all established rules for upper and lower case in this discussion
- see entry above - have been cogently observed by the authour-

As one who has studied Evolution, I have to take issue with Murdo’s ill-informed stance on the subject.

Murdo said “Evolution, excuse me, Macro-evolution is a theory”. ALL science is based on theories. Gravity, Quantum Physics, Relativity, Particle Dynamics, you name it – they’re all theories. There is no such thing as ‘proof’ of a theory. There is simply evidence … but there comes a point when the volume of evidence is so great that non-acceptance of the theory becomes sheer bloody-mindedness.

Murdo then accused the theory of becoming a dogma – well, that is a matter of opinion but I’ll admit that some people adhere to it with very little knowledge of the subject, just as some people roundly condemn it with equally little knowledge of the subject.

Murdo then said, “Honestly, has anyone seen the big bang?”, thus implying that it because the answer is obviously ‘no’, then there’s no reason to believe it happened. Never mind the expanding universe, the microwave background radiation, etc. But this is irrelevant to the subject. What, Murdo, has the big bang got to do with the theory of evolution?? Nothing at all. It is simply another theory that contradicts a fundamentalist interpretation of the bible. Many theories within geology, palaeontology, astrophysics and biology do the same – of course it is convenient for creationists to lump them all under the heading of ‘Evolution’, figuring that if they can disprove one, the whole lot will fall down.

Murdo went on to say “Where and how humans emerged from the sea?”, invoking you to share his incredulity at such an improbable event. The problem is that evolutionary theory doesn’t suggest that humans emerged from the sea. Murdo is using a typical creationist technique of painting a false picture of evolution so that he can cleverly point out how silly it looks.

Then Murdo said “It is a simple theory, no more provable, and indeed, less valid than the creation science arguments in all respect to logic”. As I have already stated, you cannot prove a scientific theory. You can merely attempt to disprove it. All attempts to disprove evolution have failed, so the theory can reasonably be assumed to be quite strong. As to the theory being ‘less valid than the creation science arguments in all respect to logic’, I would challenge him a) to explain why evolutionary theory is not logical, and b) to come up with a creationist argument that is logical and stands up to scientific analysis. Oh, and while you're about it, explain the difference, as you see it, between micro- and macro-evolution.

Ah...3 days...I'm sorry Murdo your time is up. And the winner of the lovely 1/8th scale model of the Beagle, filled to the gunwhales with pearls of wisdom is... Arctica. Begins with an A, ends with an a, and is A-plus thru and thru!
But, A, when you say a theory can't be proved it has to be disproved, you say it like that's a good thing? You're saying if I make a proposition that can't readily be disproved and enuff people come to accept my theory simply on that basis...
No. Never. That's democracy determines truth.
Reality ain't a democracy.

A valid scientific theory must conform to three basic rules:
1) It must be able to explain the available evidence.
2) It must be able to predict future discoveries.
3) It must be falsifiable (i.e. disprovable).

Creationists have, to be fair, tried very hard to explain the fossil record scientifically in terms that do not clash with a literal interpretation of the bible - see Henry Morris's 'The Genesis Flood', in which he describes the theory of 'Flood Geology'. It does not rely on supernatural forces, simply on geological and meteorological processes. Unfortunately its explanation of the available evidence is highly unsatisfactory, and its falsifiability, while rendering it scientifically valid, also leaves it wide open to being falsified ... as indeed it has been.

Einstein once said (I won't use quotes as I don't know the exact words): my theory can never be proved correct. However any experiment at any time might easily prove me wrong.

Someone else said: Proof is for mathematics and alcohol.

You cannot prove a scientific theory. Science never 'stops'. Theories are continually refined, modified, improved as our understanding grows. Thus the theory of evolution is constantly being refined, the mechanisms such as natural selection, punctuated equilibria and so on being challenged over and over again. The underlying principle, however - that evolution occurs - now has so much evidence behind it that it is simply unrealistic to deny it. The only way to do so, it seems, is to invoke God, to claim that God made the world in such a way that it appears that evolution has happened. But this is not a scientific theory. It is not falsifiable. I could claim that God created the universe and everything in it on March 14th, 1986, with 5 billion humans complete with implanted memories of their own pasts, and history books on the shelves full of events that never in fact occurred and tales of people that never existed. Nobody could disprove this, and that is what makes it useless as a scientific theory.

It may be 'useless as a scientific theory' but it's a very healthy way to deal with reality... It works for me!
But why March 4th? I 'always' believed it was April 1, 1967. However, that may be, as you point out, part of my 'installed' memory.
Nonetheless I otherwise agree entirely with your prosthesis..
..except for the phrase 'as our understanding grows' which troubles me at an organic level..
Oh, and not to mention that it is contrary to the truth of our continuing descent into 'mis-understanding' ever since the advent of the written word and other forms of iconography (expressly forbidden by all the 'gods').

As far as I am aware, there is no evidence to support any theory on what happened during the first 10 milliseconds of the universe (regardless of whatever theory you believe about what happened post the 10 milliseconds). Due to this lack of evidence, God is just as good a theory as any other.