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

"Theatre stormed in Sikh protest"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4107437.stm

"Hundreds of Sikh demonstrators protested outside a Birmingham theatre against a play depicting sex abuse and murder in a temple."

"The protesters claim the play mocks their faith."

"The play's author has revealed threats had been made against her and she had been advised by police not to say anything in public."




az

"If "psychic" events happen, they happen without a doubt, to the person who has them."

This is similar to my statement that god exists - of COURSE he exists, as a pattern in the minds of the superstitious.

And psychic phenomena exist, in precisely the same sense - inside the heads of the credulous and incurious.

The only point of disagreement comes when people start to suggest that these things have some sort of "reality" outside their heads, some connection with the external universe. That connection is what is susceptible to scientific testing, and it's that that has failed utterly to show up, ever, anywhere.

I don't need to check any sources for this, because if ever even one person manages to produce a real effect, it will be the single biggest event in the history of human science. It will require a fundamental rethink of almost everything we think we know about physics.

To be honest, I'm quite looking forward to it. But I'm not holding my breath...

H.

'Miracle of science' is rather like 'religious truth' - a meaninglessly sloppy crossover phrase.
The first person to be cured by penicillin might have been viewed as 'miraculous' by some, but possibly not by the people who had been making penicillin with that particular intent in mind.
Curing a virus (even a previously incurable one) (or at least, keeping someone alive until their immuns system can get the upper hand) using new antiviral and other drugs is not miraculous in any real sense. Groundbraking, innovative, lucky, but not miraculous.

>> "Bat bites can be painless and almost invisible, and not noticed at the time they occur. (p 205.)"
>> "Given these facts, the 'fundamentalist' girl and her family did not show stupidity any more than anyone else would, by not going to seek medical treatment as soon as she was bitten."

Hmmm. The incubation period has no relation to the *likelihood* of infection, and therefore has no relation to the wisdom of seeking vaccination as soon as possible after any possible exposure. While bat bites may go unnoticed by some, hers *didn't* go unnoticed - she picked up a bat, it bit her, the wound was cleaned. Seeking medical treatment (apart from vaccination) at a later date doesn't come into a discussion of knowledge or wisdom, since by the time obvious symptoms appear, it's usually too late.
Many people *are* unaware of the dangers of minor bat-bites, so understandable ignorance may have played a part in the lack of treatment-seeking.

They didn't show more stupidity than anyone else would who had the same information and made the same decision. However, though I know what you meant, in one sense that statement is actually fairly meaningless. I could say that someone who ran into a burning house while soaked in petrol was no more stupid than anyone else who made the same decision, or that someoen who looked at a load of disparate facts and came to a brilliant conclusion was not necessarily smarter that someone else who did the same thing. Both statements would be true, but fairly low on information content.
I don't know what the parents knew about rabies at the time of the bite. Without knowing that, it's not possible to make a decision on why they didn't seek treatment.

In the end, as long as someone reads the press articles and learns about rabies and the value of vaccination, and no-one reads it and thinks 'Isn't God great, he can cure rabies, I don't need to bother with vaccines', it may have done some good overall. (However, if there really are people in that last category, I might be tempted to side with Hoo on this one.)

Interestingly, many of the reports of the case I've read don't seem to stress the need for vaccination as much as they could have done. No-one seem to have asked the parents what they knew about rabies and vaccination at the time of the bite.

Unfortunately, one report did have a load of comments from religious people, including a classic 'Just believe in God and everything will be OK' style comment. Obviously, all the *previous* religious relatives who have lost loved ones to rabies just didn't have a strong enough faith.

"if there really are people in that last category, I might be tempted to side with Hoo on this one.)"

What do you mean "if"?

There are demonstrably people in that category. Jehovah's Witnesses refusing blood transfusions is only the most common and egregious example of natural selection weeding out the stupid and superstitious from the gene pool. It's just a shame that we can't control access to other medicines so that we don't waste medical resources on people who believe god loves them. Keep the medicines for the atheists, only, and let the religious take it up with their imaginary friend in the sky. Imagine the savings to the NHS...

H.

<>

It was the doctor's word, not mine...


<>

Just so!

<>
As far as the article republished in our local paper goes, I don't see why anyone would think that! God didn't get a mention at all in our local paper, as I pointed out at the time of the first discussion about this - so to me, the God thing is a rather odd distraction from the point - that new treatment had been tried - and worked!

<>

I can't quite take you seriously, Hoo. Not even you could possibly *mean* that!
FYI, there are a tonne of people who believe God loves them, but who also believe in the efficacy of modern medicine. One doesn't preclude the other.
(Silly me, what you want is for people to take such a silly wind up seriously, and get all bent out of shape... I'm sorry for indulging you, but i just gotta say that I refuse to believe even you are that uncompassionate!)

and and a nice lie down with a pillow and aspirin for your poor cold heart...

>>" was the doctor's word, not mine..."

I know. I brought the subject up in the first place.

It doesn't matter who *said* it, or who repeats it. It doesn't get any more right or wrong by assocaition with an individual.
It's at best a sloppy phrase that should only really be used in contexts which are purely religious (if such situations actually exist), or purely secular, where everyone knows it just means 'lucky', with no religious baggage attached.

Hoo,
Firstly, I *suspect* the rabies case was more one of ignorance rather than 'You'll be OK, you were bitten in a church'.

More widely, if it's down to people putting their own faith above healthcare for themselves, or juggling poisonous snakes in church, then that's down to them. I'm not sure they should be allowed to make decisions like that for their children, at least where the healthcare intevention does demonstrably more good than harm.

"Not even you could possibly *mean* that!"

Absolutely I do. Natural selection at its best. Because after all, the only people left alive after a few years will be the intelligent, and the people god really loves, right? The only people actually harmed by my policy would be the people who believe in god but who he doesn't like. So where's the problem? If god doesn't like them, aren't we all better of without them? And, being compassionate, aren't they better off dead and in hell where they belong, instead of here on earth thinking, wrongly, that god loves them? The logic is inescapable.

H.

The logic would be inescapable if and only if religious people all rejected medicine - then they might merit your spiteful punishment for the crime of being Muslim or Christian. As I have pointed out, there are many religious people who not only accept medicine, they practice it - being doctors and nurses - so who's "we" in this context, white man?
Surely not all people in charge of the health system are your atheistic types?

" so who's "we" in this context, white man?"

Interesting insult...

"we" in this context is "non-hypocrites". Religious types using modern medicine are no different than homosexual bishops or divorced preachers. They're firm in their religion right up to the point it interferes with their lifestyle, then suddenly their faith, being inconvenient, is dumped - or more usually "reinterpreted" as being "metaphorical" or some other such sophistry.

They might be fooling themselves, but I doubt they're fooling anyone else....

H.

Interesting insult? It's a joke - didja ever see the Lone Ranger?

<< Religious types using modern medicine are no different than homosexual bishops or divorced preachers. They're firm in their religion right up to the point it interferes with their lifestyle, then suddenly their faith, being inconvenient, is dumped - or more usually "reinterpreted" as being "metaphorical" or some other such sophistry.>>

First, "different than"? What's that about!

Second, it's not the same thing at all! There are Christian doctors and medical researchers, as I said and as you ignored...
Had you ever thought that perhaps modern medicine is God in action?

"What's that about!"

Now I'm confused. This appears to be an interrogative, but it ends with an exclamation mark rather than a question mark. What to make of this? Perhaps the writer is a fool. That's a theory that works...

"Had you ever thought that perhaps modern medicine is God in action?"

No. Modern medicine is HUMANS in action, as is obvious to any objective observer.

The superstitious are of course not objective, for they, and you, are desperate to shore up their obsolete cultism.

God in action? You might just as well say that television is god in action, automobiles are god in action, nuclear power stations are god in action, the invasion of Iraq was god in action...

You see, when you have an explanation like "It's god in action", the problem is it can, and frequently is, used to explain EVERYTHING. Which means that, as an explanation, it's useless. Anything that explains everything, explains nothing. It's meaningless nonsense. But then, isn't that the essence of religion?

H.

<> (Hoo)

How about for aztheists too?


<> (Potholer)

My opinion is that parents have no right to make decisions like this for their children. Especially as it is quite often the case that once children grow up they reject their religious upbringing. To put their lives at risk - or worse - to let them die because of parental personal belief should not be legal.

All the truly compassionate Christians that I know don't force their children into accepting their beliefs - they try to leave the option open for them to decide for themselves when they are ready.


<> (Hoo)


Again, depending on one's definition of 'god' perhaps everything *is* god in action. But clearly this is a very personal definition and not one that one should expect a secular and/or multi-cultural population to embrace.


az

>>"How about for aztheists too?"

Indeed

>>"Again, depending on one's definition of 'god' perhaps everything *is* god in action. But clearly this is a very personal definition and not one that one should expect a secular and/or multi-cultural population to embrace."

Yes, but when 'god's will' gets to encompass everything then it becomes a rough equivalent to 's$!t happens', or 'that's just the way things are', and lacks any real meaning. Even in a dualist god/satan world, dividing events into good and bad before assigning them to the appropriate force doesn't actually increase human understanding of the world.

If one or more omniscient gods have created the universe to be a perfect simulation of a godless one, then I'd assume he/she/it/they would also have predicted that once humans started getting educated, they would start to believe less, so I'd have to assume they actually *want* an atheistic world.
Therefore I'm fulfilling the will of the gods by not believing in any of them.

Hmmm. . .

I actually believe in the possibility of all gods existing, though probably not in the same way most people use this word and I don't believe in any one god in particular, in any sort of religious sense. But I do understand why people feel a need to create god concepts.

Religion is a whole other kettle of fish, one that is mostly political and usually has little or nothing to do with what most people call 'god'.

So it turns out that 'god's will' is simply our own will.

<>

Well, if that is your will then I guess you are.


az

Well, since y'all ignored my last link to a news item about a play in Birmingham being attacked by self-righteous Sikhs, how about this one?


"For many Republicans, Christianity and support for President George W Bush go hand-in-hand, but if the two begin to clash, will the friendship continue?"


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4105229.stm


az

Perhaps I should have posted that last link elsewhere, so I think I will . . .


az

Okay, I'll comment on the Sikh link:

'Mohan Singh, a local Sikh community leader, said: "When they're doing a play about a Sikh priest raping somebody inside a gurdwara, would any religion take it?"'

Gee. The Catholic religion has taken it for centuries.

My feeling is that if an artistic work is neutral about or commenting on a religion then lets let it go and have a good time with it. If, however, a work is promolgating hatred toward the religion, then we all should be offended. From the fact that the play would likely have been alright if set in a community centre instead of a temple it would seem that the play itself was not promolgating hate. I'm not sure that I can agree with the complaint that the play was desecrating a non-existent temple. The question I would have of the theatre is "is the setting in a temple necessary to the play and if so, why?"

Getting back to the 'saving the medicine for the atheists' angle...last week on Radio 4's Today, they discussed the 'theory' (read: 'attempt by conservative Christians to adopt scientific clothing') of Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolution. Some American university guy was being interviewed along with Prof. Stephen Rose. Rose said:

"Nobody who knows anything about biology takes intelligent design the least bit seriously....and at the end of the day, if I get cancer, I'd sooner be treated by biologist than by a theologian."

The US guy was also utterly disingenuous in stating that his personal religious beliefs were irrelevant to his 'scientific' position.