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

Thanks - you're an . Wilma and Recumbentman - I have no rights to ask you to help - but if you can, I'll be in your debt!

Well it has to be said that your persistence is exemplary and your willingness to reconsider likewise. So I've re-read part one, and here are my comments.

1. The header "PART 1: THE DIALECTIC OF FAITH AND REASON" should perhaps come after the list of parts, not before.

2. The quote "TRUTH IS THE AIM OF ASSERTION...ONE MUST ASSERT WHAT ONE KNOWS" needs an attribution at least. It is a tenet of good behaviour on h2g2 but by no means a self-evident maxim. Many people lie for their own purposes (not excluding clerics, apparently).

3. Punctuation: "a critical comment from a colleague who said;" -- your original comma was better than a semicolon here. A colon would do, or a dash, but a semicolon is not right.

4. Grammar: "and then look in subsequent parts at the problems arising, their implications and then conclude with the way forward offered by the Pope" -- bad patching. Perhaps "the problems arising and at their implications, and then conclude"

5. "Where are we going? / Why is this important?" -- this is an odd question. In the context of the car analogy, it is confusing. One hardly gets into a car to drive to an unknown destination. The question you want (it would appear) is "Which way should we go?" with no second question (it's obvious that it is important).

6. "Ignore one of the friends and go with the others advice" > other's

7. "In this story the friends stand for reason and faith (one gives advice exclusively from one perspective and the other from the alternative point of view)." This is the bit I just can't swallow. People may pretend to disregard reason (do they?) but it is not humanly possible: Man is a rational animal.

8. "They trust these truths to be self-evident" -- that phrase resonates very specifically to the US Constitution. "Self-evident" doesn't look like the right word for fideism.

9. "This system may or may not have within it a belief in God proposition" reads awkwardly; you could use quotes (a 'belief in God' proposition) or hyphens (a belief-in-God proposition).

10. "certainly this is not commonly defined for all faiths though it is a critical aspect in many, eg, Buddhists do not have a concept of a Personal God)" -- this could be tightened up. You could drop the first clause altogether and say "Buddhists, for instance, do not have a concept of a Personal God". In general e.g. and i.e. are to be avoided along with etc.

11. "In our car friend's example above" > friends

I can't be doing more of this. I still don't think this forum is the place for this piece, much as you have improved it. The whole ethos of this site is rationalist. Edited Entries are required to be evidence-based. You make a gesture towards this in quoting the scientific claim that faith is good for the health, but you give far too much credence (for a rationalist site) to plain old head-in-sand obstinacy.

My worth is, when religious people appear to disregard reason, they are doing something else, namely following what appears to them a higher reason. Reason is not without its shortcomings: there are famous cases, like Von Humboldt's Tree, where reason has led people astray; but the cause of error there is logical deducton from insufficient data.

The "faith-only" attitude is a political stance and should simply be exposed as such.

Thanks I'll make the changes ...

There is a lot of stuff in h2g2 that is not rationalist, we could make a list (maybe more than 50% of entries? - pick a number). If h2g2 is serious to its DNA mission about being a guide to life the universe and everything , then something like this is warranted for sure. Its a crucial issue bang on the mission statement.

You seem to reject the premise, that is a foundational principle of many religions that reason and faith are able to be reconciled. Either you're right, or they are wrong. And keep in mind that there are a huge number of scientists who are also people of faith (may 50%?), and find no inconsistency - are they all in delusion? Or could it be you that is wrong?

Of course there are folks of faith who are fundamental fideists, as well as miltant rational materialists who often fit the mold as fundamentalists also. I think they are both likely wrong personally, but that is not the point. I accept that it is legitimate for them to think that way.

As the tile of the entry says - we need to be tolerant when we are seeking truth.

Think it over - and tell me if you think I do not have a point here.

>You seem to reject the premise, that is a foundational principle of many religions that reason and faith are able to be reconciled.

I rather think (with Dan Dennett) that religious explanations are "conversation-stoppers" to silence questioners. Children ask endless questions, and at some point you need some variant of "because that's just how it is" to end the conversation.

Dennett begins his book "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" with the song

Tell me why the stars do shine
Tell me why the ivy twines
Tell me why the sky is blue
And I will tell you why I love you.

Because God made the stars to shine
Because God made the ivy twine
Because God made the sky so blue
Because God made you, I love you.

He quotes it with affection and nostalgia, and says it has its value. I agree; it is beautiful, it expresses something wonderfully, and maybe it can tide me over when I feel low; but it is not really an answer.

I don't think we have to agree over our respective Atheists, Agnostic or Theist positions for entries to be valid.

I appreciate that you support Dennet's thesis. But many do not, for example many support Stephen Jay Goulds views on adaptationism, Dennet vilifies this in a whole chapter, and has Gould supporters at his throat for 'misrepresenting' the position. His views on consciouness, free will, etc., are hotly debated. Shall we pick a side? And based on the side we pick suggest those opposing entries be burned/banned/deleted?

Let's just make sure the entry is balanced, highlites contentious areas and avoids any personal theory or conjecture. This I have tried to do.

The opening of John Paul II encyclical 'Fides et Ratio' says: 'Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.' This to me is beautiful, and calls to many who seek truth.

Stick with me Recumbentman - I like your style - and there is a possibility that we can learn from each other - don't you agree? .

Certainly. This is a helpful exercise in working out just what we believe and how we can defend it, and how to change if we find we can't.

Of course I am in no position to ban a point of view; I merely wish to support Douglas Adams's pleas for clarity and good sense, as reflected in the founding guidelines of this site. And of course there is room for other views than I can digest. I merely offer the best criticism I can muster.

Religion is a queer can of worms all the same. How much do any two people really agree at all? I can't even agree with myself.

OK - Done - I hope Part 1 is now finished. So onto the others. Sorry for all the typos/mistakes. (I need to edit offline on Word so I can use their tools more). Everyone have a on me.

A14630410 - Truth and Tolerance - Integrating Faith and Reason

Off to read the first section now

Well, I have to say that is a prety tightly wrapped introduction. You have done very well indeed, Pilgrim. Only two points I would raise:

1. You still have first person referenes in there and they need to come out.

2. The images in all the entries will have to come out before this series goes to Peer Review. The images you have used may be allocated to entries already in the EG. The editors will usually commission images for entries they feel require them. So if your entries get BLOBs, they will be completely original and exclusive to your entries. (Besides all of which, EG guidelines dictate thus).

Do you want to submit the entries into PR all together or one by one? I would imagine it would make more sense if they went in together.


W


Next entry in the series: A15985182

Yes - I would rather they went together to PR. I'll take out the blobs of course before they go there - let me enjoy them before I submit! . I'll look over the entries to take first person refs out.

Wilma - when you are talking about 1st person refs - are you saying that I need to take out expressions like "We will look at ..." etc. I could replace the 'We' with 'You' but it sounds harsher to me, less chatty - Can you give me an example or two of how you feel this should be done - then I'll pick it up from there.

Hmm, yes, I see what you mean... why don't you leave them for the moment and see how they fare in PR?
W

Sure - Any comments on 2,3 and 4. We have mostly focussed on just 1

Part 1 should be ready - looking for more comments on parts 2,3 and 4 now.

Anything happening here?

Suggest Flea Market

The author has - this needs to go to the Flea Market.

Alex

Suggest Large Bin

I'm afraid we don't have one of those.

Yes I notice that. This is true immortality, not a jot or a tittle shall be removed . . .