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

Been away. Now I'm back and I found a little invitation to this thread. Haven't read the whole thread yet, but I have an initial pair of thoughts:

1) I pretty much totally agree with the linked opinion piece. As I would put it: communication is everything; the biggest crime is shutting down communication.


2) How's this for a scenario for the invention of religion? The much-loved grandmother of the child of a single parent dies. The young child spends the ensuing time shattered and asking the single-parent 'where's Grandma?' Even the most committed athiest would have know heart if he said 'worms meat. nothing more.'

Often religion is a white lie.


What joy is there in telling Virginia that there really isn't a Santa Claus?


Is honesty *really* always the best policy?



(right. that's more than two thoughts. Now I'll try to get to the rest of the thread.)

I see (after twenty posts) I've repeated some points.

re: Edward's post # 5: I've been dipping into Pascal's Pensees (considering the editorial history, can anyone be said to be doing anything else?) and, frankly, I can't make head nor tail of it. Perhaps in French . . .

And, concerning Otto's post about the sunset: 'The same or similar experiences are interepted in very different ways - the atheist/agnostic explains that feeling you get watching a beautiful sunset in a much more mundane way than the theist who feels God's love in the beauty of the sunset. '

well, actually, I suspect that they are actually having much the same feelings and that each explanation is equally 'mundane' to the other. 'God did it' is exceptionally pedestrian to the atheist and 'A Brief History of Time' is exceptionally pedestrian to the theist.

On to the next twenty (and another pint)

Okay.

Pope.

Fairies in the Garden.

Islam.

Taliesin.

I'm up to speed.

Fanny,

>>I think he is probably quite well aware of the effect of his lecture and is doing it for calculating political reasons. Popes have been stirring up shit for centuries. Apparently there were trained marksmen today on the lookout for an attack when he gave his sermon. But it'll actually be christians in muslim countries though that'll probably suffer, but what does that calculating old *busted*care about that?<<

Not a lot, no doubt.

But on the other hand, the way to treat people who behave like spoilt children - who tantrum whenever something happens they don't like - is not to indulge them.

The fact is that christians think muslims are wrong about stuff and vice versa, and both groups should be allowed to say so. It would be quite ludicrious to sincerely believe Jesus is the son of God, and simultaneously have no opinion on the suggestion that he wasn't the son of God.

Christianity, Islam and Judaism have common roots, with stories of a bloodthirsty god and bloodthirsty patriarchs. Gideon? Moses? You name it. It is fairly natural to think that these origins have some effect on the character of the faith, although if you are a member of a particular one you will have a different perspective than if you are not.

What is offensive is not when somebody expresses an opinion that is unflattering, what is offensive is things like the christian end-timers pouring money into anti-peace movements in Israel, or supporting global warming. Or some of the anti-semitic hate speech common in middle eastern newspapers and websites. Or when people orchestrate riots, killing people, in response to cartoons published in Denmark. (When the same cartoons are published in a newspaper in Egypt, nobody notices.)

---
And, concerning Otto's post about the sunset:

erm well, actually, I suspect that they are actually having much the same feelings and that each explanation is equally 'mundane' to the other. 'God did it' is exceptionally pedestrian to the atheist and 'A Brief History of Time' is exceptionally pedestrian to the theist.
----

My point with the sunset example was not to draw a distinction between scientific and religious explanations of the world in general and the sunset in particular. The point I was trying to make was about feelings and responses to the sunset - how it feels to the person who watches the sun sets and takes pleasure in it.

(anhaga)
>>2) How's this for a scenario for the invention of religion? The much-loved grandmother of the child of a single parent dies. The young child spends the ensuing time shattered and asking the single-parent 'where's Grandma?' Even the most committed athiest would have know heart if he said 'worms meat. nothing more.'


I've refered to this problem before. No, you don't gave to refer to creepy-crawly, icky maggots - but then, I'm thinking that *with or without the heaven myth*, death is something that children find it hard to get their head around. Remember, also, that some theistic faiths - Judaism for example - don't have a concept of afterlife. (Are there any Jews here who can tell us what Jewish children are told about Grandma?)

>>"Apparently there were trained marksmen today on the lookout for an attack when he gave his sermon."

So the local police knew precisely what he was going to say, and expected that radical Muslims were also so aware?

Scratch that reply - I misread the 'today'.

Still, I'm not sure what marksmen can expect to do in a crowded square.

Can I move it on slightly from theists to irrationalists in general?

First off - remember that I'm self-defining myself as a militant atheist fundamentalist. I can see no basis for belief in any concept that cannot be demonstrated, intra-observer.

I can understand perfectly the old-fashioned idea of a personalised god - the white-bearded fella. I can understand the idea of a god who influences every act of species differentiation with his noodly appendage. These ones are patently tosh. The evidence flatly contradicts them at every turn.

But then we move on to the fluffies, the ones who tell us about some kind of interconnected-trancendental-'in the world but not of the world'-god-thingy. These people won't even give me anthing I can poke at. They fail my atheist fundamentalist test by not presenting any evidence other than their own imaginations. So I simply can't reason with them because they can't tell me what it is that I'm meant to be reasoning about. I believe that I'm reasonable in concluding that their theistic notions - their Fimbly feelings, etc. - are reduceable to biological phenomena.

There was an extreme illustration of this in an interview in this month's Rolling Stone with a guy called Daniel Pinchbeck. He's an advocate of the quasi-religious use of hallucenagens, particularly ayahuasca, in the Huxley/O'Leary mould. A quote: "Some might say that these experiences are simply the effects of chemicals on the human psyche, but I really think that they're manifestaions of higher dimensions." Hmm. Firsly, it would seem pretty likely to me that chemicals that act on the brain mess up the mind. Hey, who *hasn't* seen God under such circumstances. Secondly...I think that I understand (just!) what's meant by higher dimensions in maths and physics...but I'm not sure that he does. (Unless, at an outside chance, he's talking about a change in the way the brain works that would be observable at CERN).

Re: the grandma problem.

It seems to me that the death of a loved one is something to be sad about. It seems quite wrong to be happy for somebody's new life in heaven.

And I do think Christians mostly agree with me. They do actually grieve. And not just for the separation.

Scenario: You are oldish, dying, maybe days left. You suddenly hear that your only relative, a son or daughter has been killed in a car crash. This means you expect to see them soon in heaven - sooner than you might have otherwise seen them. Should you be happy at this news? Or sad?

Grief is real, and important, and I would be nervous that stories that try to lessen the impact may do more harm than good - by creating a discordance between how you viscerally feel about the loss, and what you are told you ought to believe about it.

Wee Frees aren't allowed to cry at funerals.

>>Wee Frees aren't allowed to cry at funerals.<<

Really? Wow!

There's no reason to be sad, therefore you're not allowed to be sad. The grief of the bereaved is an embarassment to the doctrines of the church. Good grief!

No Christmas either for the Wee Frees, right? Christianity for robots.

Probably why there's so many alcoholics amongst them!


(It's also been said that they're against sex because it might lead to dancing. )

Yes Anhaga, honesty really is the best policy, in general, with some caveats and exceptions, and other than those times when you don't really feel like it...because little lies have a nasty tendency of snowballing.

Ed,

"They fail my atheist fundamentalist test by not presenting any evidence other than their own imaginations. So I simply can't reason with them because they can't tell me what it is that I'm meant to be reasoning about."

I agree, but this is beside the point as far as this discussion goes. I'm talking about whether or not it's possible for atheists and theists to talk to each other about matters other than their religious beliefs (or lack thereof).

I see what you mean...But the problem re-emerges as soon as we get into issues of right and wrong, whether we're talking politics or the wider sphere of etics. The theists are prone to saying 'In accordance with my faith...' and then I simply can't reason with them. Our only common ground is secular: we both need a shared territory we can mutually agree upon. And that, ipso facto, is the territory of atheism.

I suspect that atheists and theists could find common ground on matters of ethics as well (once it has been demonstrated to theists whence their ethics derive)

For example:

If it is postulated that morality proceeds from the divinity, than it follows that an all-powerful deity is able to construct any ethical system It desires. And so, the Ten commandments could as easily been Thou shalt murder, fornicate, abort fetuses, eat shellfish and pigs, suffer witches to live, etc.

This is, of course, an absurd morality for both theists and atheists, ergo, divinity is not the source of morality and, in fact, if It exists, divinity is Itself not all-powerful but is controlled by a morality It cannot Itself escape.

I had written a long winded post, but I've decided to simplify.

Pope = Bad
Free Speech = Good
Rioting = Bad


the crux is the interpretation of free/protected speech. To paraphrase an example, it is not protected speech to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, b/c the resulting rush to the exit could hurt/kill many people.

I think the Pope's statements, although reprehensible, don't constitute this type of statement. Now if the Pope were to recommend an illegal action to his followers (e.g. don't do business Islamic people), then he would be completely culpable.


Lastly, is there such a thing as a "white" lie? I of course indulge, but I recognize it's usually to save myself the time and effort of a truthful and unpleasant confrontation. Certainly on the matter of death, for a young child I think that would be a good learning/growing opportunity that shouldn't be wasted by using the 'easy' out.

I've really hesitated about what I'm about to post but after a good deal of soul-searching (and with thanks to Steve Martin) I'll go ahead:

'it is not protected speech to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater'



Is it okay to yell "Movie!" in a crowded firehall?




Seriously, in response to Dogster's clarification of the initial question, I'd have to say, "well, of course it's possible for them to talk." I have conversations with theists every day of the week. I manage to communicate with the muslim 7-11 guy when I get my Fresca. I managed to get through that King James Bible class with the Presbyterian when I was an undergraduate. I managed to have discussions with my Anglican thesis supervisor. I managed to make enough sense of a Medieval Catholic poem to write a thesis on it. I even managed to have conversations with a slightly senile Anglican aunt over the weekend.

I have trouble right now seeing where there needs to be a problem. The only place I can see a problem coming up is when one side or the other decides to be belligerent about religion. In such cases the belligerent side is simply trying to shut down communication.

As for the Pope, for whom I have less than little admiration, as I understand it weren't his 'offensive' remarks actual a quotation from a medieval Emperor? Why was this offensive? In what context did he use the quote? Was he expressing approval of the medieval sentiment? I guess I could read one of the news stories . . .

(or was it George Carlin?)