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

Now then Irving. I'll have no tiffs among my cult members. Besides, I've got a horrible cold, and am very disappointed at missing several days of bilesome argument!

Anyway, let's get in there (as they say on TV)...

"As for the Big Bang, it works much better than you realize as an argument for God. If something exploded out of nothing, where did it come from?"

Now this is a fundamental problem of living in 3 dimensions and being fundamentally controlled by the 4th, without having the slightest understanding of it. TIME, my good folks, TIME is the problem which is at the root of many of the arguments here. We as humans see time as a linear thing, it goes forwards, it always goes forwards, it's as immutable as the rising of the sun, and the infernal ticking of the millions of clocks, isn't it? Is it hell (and I use that in a non-denomenational way). Time does not go forwards in the same way that it doesn't go backwards. Time exists as a dimension just like all the others, it has "high" bits where time is rapid, and "low" bits where time is at a standstill. There was nothing before in the same way there is nothing after, because there is no before or after. We (creatures of this planet) PERCEIVE time as moving forwards because that is the only psychologically acceptable way of perceiving it. It is very difficult for us to imagine what it would be like to exist in more dimensions than our own. There is no reason why a being couldn't. Imagine not being constrained by time. Imagined being able to look at this planet and see it throughout it's "time". It would be incredible, you'd be able to see every age of the planet from it's beginning to it's end. Think of what the sky at night would look like!! Obviously you'd need something of a higher scale of vision to be able to see this, but anyway, what I'm saying is, what the hell am I saying, oh yes, any being that living in a greater number of dimensions than ours would seem godlike since they would have creative power over dimensions which we are subject to. In the same way that a two dimensional being would be in awe of our mastery of three dimensional space. However they as us are not gods.

"God is a label for what you don't understand. He used to cause fire to come down from the heavens when his people had sinned. No longer. He used to make the Sun rise and set and paint rainbows in the sky. No longer. He used to send lights across the sky to foretell of times of upheaval. No longer."

That was in tribal times. Once man had society God was a label which allowed one group of people to control information and learning so that another group of people were necessarily dependent on the social structures put in place by the first group of people. Nowadays we have technology to do that.

As for "Coincidence" as a word or substitute for the miraculous, this is derived from a basic misunderstanding of probability and how it works, how often non-coincidental events happen, and therefore how obvious it then becomes that coincidental events are bound to happen, especially when it comes to our existence on this lump of rock, "But it's all too much of a coincidence", yes and on 200 million other planets it wasn't and nothing happened. Every lottery winner is not the son of God. (I can fully understand why Si gets annoyed by this, however I know full well that if you aren't mathematical in thinking, a lot of this can sound like complete cobblers, but it's true...honest)

However, none of this precludes there being a ghost in the machine

Hmmmm... I don't quite understand why you can't be an atheist and happy... I have an extremely sceptical nature, and I'm a dead-set atheist, and I don't think that I lose anything from it...

Just don't think about it too much, then you're home and hosed.
Cheer!

Where do atheists derive their "morals and values", those two rightwing political buzzwords, from? How do they determine what is right and wrong without some religious influence? Much of western society is based on Judaeo-Christian influences, and its justice system grounded on it.

> but almost seem like you are forcing aetheism on us. You are right and we're wrong so
> you're going to go on your own little crusade to prove it.

Not so, but discussions like this always gravitate towards the relationship between science and religion and their relative explanatory merits. It is at times like this when it becomes clear how few questions most people have asked. When person X uses their own ignorance as a weapon against the people who really are trying to find out how things work, I get annoyed.

Also, everyone has a right to their own point of view, yes? What many people don't realise is that having a right to a point of view does not mean that your point of view must be right. If I think you're wrong, I'll tell you and I'll do my best to tell you why. I would expect nothing less from you. This is a discussion forum after all. You want everyone to agree? Talk about the weather.

> This is just my view on it, take it or leave it,

No, that's not what the Discuss button is for.

> As for the Big Bang, it works much better than you realize as an argument for God.

No better than it works as an argument for the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus or The One Cosmic Muffin.

What is the point of this kind of God? You realise that this is not the same God that we've been worshipping and discussing for the last few millenia don't you? This is not the same God that would have been able to impregnate a virgin or write commandments. this is not the same kind of entity at all that would be able to inspire the creation of religion in the first place. The point is, if we label it God we haven't learned anything.

Cause: "I'm not well studied on the subject."
Effect: "I only know what I believe. "

Please don't take any of the above personally, I wouldn't like to think I had upset you in any way.

> The old faith vs proof dichotomy that plagues humans.

I know and the damned thing gets me every time

Here's my latest attempt to explain it's effect on understanding (I'll type in soothing tones):

Premise: As soon as an egg cell has started to divide, it appears to "know" what shape the organism shouldl eventually be. It follows some kind of "plan".

Hypothesis: That "plan" is the product of intelligent design. It is part of God's grander plan.

Damn! Where do we go from here? The faithful now have a object of faith and need proceed no further. The skeptical, though, would probably continue to study the activity of cellular growth in order to find out exactly how it *does* work.

It turns out that within a particular cell at a particular time a number of genes are "switched on" by the chemical makeup of the interior of the cell. These genes use the "states" of other genes and the cell's chemical "state" to modify the cell's interior - "feeding back" "information" into the "network" of "mutually dependant genes". When a cell divides, the cell's chemical interior is shared between the two new halves. If it's distribution was uneven, the two new cell's will be different and behave in different ways.

This behaviour is essentially digital and can be modelled "in silico". Infact you can set up exactly the same kinds of networks artificially to study their behaviour. What we see is that the networks "cycle" through a set number of "states", producing different chemicals at each stage. We have our "program". We have our "program" and we know *why* we have it. When we compare our artificial networks with real cellular and genomic behaviour, we can see *boolean logic* activating genes - IF enzyme X AND NOT enzyme Y THEN protien A.

OK, so we know how the cell and it's controlling genomic network "decides" whether to produce heamoglobin or muscle tissue and when to do it.

Where does that leave those who accepted the original "intelligent design" hypothesis?

Why can't I tell them that they're wrong?

Because yours is a theory which has yet to be disproved, and theirs is a belief which is untestable, and therefore cannot be proved or disproved.

What you can do is invoke the Power of Okham on them and state that your theory is far simpler than their's and therefore far more acceptable.

> Because yours is a theory which has yet to be disproved, and theirs is a belief which is untestable, and therefore cannot be proved or disproved.

I know. What's so maddening, though, is the assertion that those with a theological view are even interested in the way things are. They are not. It's clear that they've given up asking "why?" because the only way you can do that it to test - if you don't test, you don't know.

> What you can do is invoke the Power of Okham on them and state that your theory is far simpler than their's and
> therefore far more acceptable.

Okham's Razor is a thread killer though. I've never had a reply to it. I want people to say, "Oh, right. That's how it is." and I'm still niave or stubborn enough to think that will happen.

Proof denies faith. Yes, but only one of them is any good at answering questions about our surroundings, faith can tell you anything you like. It's all to do with the conspiracy of little green men who killed Kennedy, abducted Elvis and ransacked Kettering.

That Okham guy really gets my goat. How do you get your name blazen into scientific and philosophical circles just be saying that the most probable event is the event that is most likely to be true. Damn geezer didn't even say anything!

That faith thing. Don't argue with it. You can't. No-one's got a clue why stuff is going on and people, whether theologians or athiests alike can catagorically state that their way is true. Being agnostic is the worst, it just gives us a headache.

Good for the theologians though, they're convinced through the strength of their faith that their supreme being is the Man. He did it all. Wouldn't it be easy if we could all throw in our lot with the blind faith thing like that. I'm sure we'd all be a lot happier that way. And as the Man said, "I'd rather be happy than right anyday".

Aspirin anyone?

>Okham's Razor is a thread killer though. I've never had a reply to it. I want people to say, "Oh, right. That's how it is." and I'm still niave or stubborn enough to think that will happen.

Er. Most likely happened that way. Don't make me use the c-o-i-n-c-i-d-e-n-c-e word again

>Proof denies faith. Yes, but only one of them is any good at answering questions about our surroundings, faith can tell you anything you like. It's all to do with the conspiracy of little green men who killed Kennedy, abducted Elvis and ransacked Kettering.

That whole proof denies faith thing, we've come back to God is Dead! !cheer! When God was hanging with his Israelite posse and doing wrath of god stuff to their enemies (like beating the crap out of the previous residents to Cannes, the Promised Land). That must have been a fearsome thing to behold. Who needed faith? The Man was there doing his God thing, Jesus was about, doing his healing wisdom thing (most of which is a pretty good idea) You had your religious proof.
Nowadays the whole thing sounds like a cock-and-bull story to the more questioning types of people (have headaches when they think about it), and faith is really the big issue that a bunch of stuff that happened a few millenia ago actually happened.

Come on God, cut us the break that you cut those ancient dudes and give us a peek.

> That whole proof denies faith thing, we've come back to God is Dead! !cheer!



> When God was hanging with his Israelite posse and
> doing wrath of god stuff to their enemies (like beating the crap out
> of the previous residents to Cannes, the Promised Land). That
> must have been a fearsome thing to behold.

Or maybe the people who didn't understand what thunder, lightening, drought, earthquake and meteor showers were concocted something to make it all a bit easier to bear.

> Come on God, cut us the break that you cut those ancient dudes and give us a peek.

Well how else were the spiritual leaders of the time going to keep their followers in check?

1. Wait for some badass stuff to go down.
2. 'Invoke' the Gods.
3. Start preaching with fanatical fury scaring the willies out of people.
4. Use whats going on about you as an excuse to make them do what you want.
5. Live in the lap of luxuary. Pass the pickles please. Mmmmm.

Hmm, though seriously, (if I may) superstitious times when people knew even less than what we know now (maybe) its probably good for them to have some sort of social control. We'd prefer it wasn't someone foaming at the mouth with religious zeal, but what are you gonna do?

"That Okham guy really gets my goat."

I wasn't invoking him, I was just saying you could. Oy, he just gets no mileage these days! But it does show where being succinct and pithy will get you.

"Being agnostic is the worst, it just gives us a headache."

It's the zest of life!! Being agnostic is the only honest position - I've got questions, issues, possibilities, and damn their toasty forky, sparkly haloed, complex meming hides, I'm going to ask them! I find it exhilerating not having any real idea as to why I'm here or what I'm capable of, it's an open book. Marvellous. If you want life's answers handed to you on a silver plate, that's dandy, but not very inspiring. Allow me to conjure up a metaphore (cos I like 'em, a good metaphore is like a cool breeze on a hot day, Jesus knew that, but I digress...)

Mountain climbing, cos it's one of my fave passtimes:

Person A "Derek" - was told about mountains in school, believes that these mountains do exist (after all, why would so many people lie about such a thing) and is happy with that. Doesn't want to know why we have mountains or what it'd be like to be on top of one. they're there and that's that.

Person B "Arthur" - was told about mountains in school, but needed to know more, so went to the library and found out everything there was to know about mountains, learnt all their names, how they were formed, etc, but never actually went to see one. After all they know all about them, surely nothing could possibly be gained by actually climbing the things?

Person C "Clive" - was told about mountains in school, said "I'll believe that when I see it", but never actually went looking for one. "I've got far better things to do than worry about big lumps of rock!"

Person D "Terry" - was told about mountains in school, looked at some pictures and thought "I wonder what it would feel like to be on top of one of those things?" Climbed a mountain and realized that in climbing you learnt loads about the mountain, and in standing at the top you can not only see further than anyone down at the bottom, but you realize that you've learnt as much about yourself as you have about the mountain.

Person E "Bernard" - was told about mountains in school, looked at some pictures and thought "I wonder what it would feel like to be on top of one of those things?" but got to the bottom realized it would be a bit of an effort, so got the cable car instead. Got to the top and through "Yeah, that was OK", bought a postcard and took the cable car back down again.

Clive made millions as a leading industrialist. Derek was one of his most faithful and diligent workers until made redundant at the age of 50. Derek never worked again . Arthur started a successful software company, but after a string of unhappy marriages , jacked it all in and joined a monastery. Terry never held down a steady job in his life cos he was far to busy boucing up and down different mountains, and Bernard led a perfectly average life, but always felt that he could have done something more with himself.

As with all my metaphors, they tend to wander a bit form the original intention , but I quite like this one (needs a bit of brushing up). Any additional persons you can think of?

But they did...didn't they?

Mmmm I like metaphors.

Person F "Jim" - Refused to believe that mountains existed at all after seeing the pictures in a book at school. Spent the rest of time at school beating up kids for their lunch money. When someone told him, 'No really, look up there at that mountain' he attempted to completely disbelieve it, looking rather silly in the process. It wasn't a mountain, it was a rather large hill. A big valley on both sides with a bit of a dale in the middle. He promptly beat up the person who tried to show him and took his lunch money. He now works as a supervisor on a construction site where he just terrorises the hell out of everybody.

Agnostics are honest, you're right. Tend to be thoughtful chaps or lasses that sit on the fence lacking sufficient faith to believe in one, nor sufficent proof to believe the other. Has a head full of interesting questions no one has any answers too, so therefore, has a horrible headache. If it all becomes a bit to much, the thoughtful chap or lass may decide to spend some time out of their head just to escape and avoid thinking about it for a while.

"superstitious times when people knew even less than what we know now (maybe) its probably good for them to have some sort of social control. We'd prefer it wasn't someone foaming at the mouth with religious zeal, but what are you gonna do?"

I wouldn't say we've advanced much since them, most of the world was illiterate then, most of the world is illiterate know. Only a privileged few had money, education, self determination - ditto. Only a few know how to make the tools which society depended on - the tools have changed, but how many people do you know who could shut down a nuclear reactor (Safely ).

So the superstitious times are our times (look at the X-files generation, a more superstitious, portent watching bunch you could never have asked for), and are you in agreement that we are in need of Hand of God social control?

It's the age old question, are the masses sane enough to be allowed to look after themselves? The same social controllers who 2000 years ago knobbled some hippie for saying any different, and then appropriated his fan club, are the same social controllers who tap our phones, check our emails, write our history for us, and tell us what colour is this year's mauve.

Maybe they're right. Maybe mankind without strict controls would go back to being a bunch of tree dwelling berry eating hippies, but hey, I bet they got laid more, chased more buffalo, and slept in the sun more than we ever will!

Some people will swallow anything! It was the barbarians from East Grinstead that ransacked Kettering. Tsk.

Yes, I fear many of the Derek's of yesteryear are the Jim's of tomorrow.

Oh yeah. But who controls the milk pixies that steal the milk from my doorstep every morning?

Ah I believe I have found kindred spirits in Merkin and Si. Superb.

>I wouldn't say we've advanced much since them, most of the world was illiterate then, most of the world is illiterate know. Only a privileged few had money, education, self determination - ditto. Only a few know how to make the tools which society depended on - the tools have changed, but how many people do you know who could shut down a nuclear reactor (Safely ).

You're right, our motives are still the same in those respects, except now we vote governments into power who we can tell (kinda....ish) what to do, rather than some leader of a theocrasy telling us in imaginative detail just how we're going to burn in hell unless we all behave and give him lots of our pickles. Democracy's have the option of which ideology they want to have run their country, though the mindless ignorant voter we all love to be really just leaves it to chance.

>So the superstitious times are our times (look at the X-files generation, a more superstitious, portent watching bunch you could never have asked for), and are you in agreement that we are in need of Hand of God social control?

Well I certainly don't think that the world is any less evil nor corrupt than it used to be, though the 'fear of the wrath of god' has probably worn off somewhat to scare us into doing the right thing. I'd like to think that we were more civilised than our ancestors that we'd think an ordered society would be a pretty neat idea and we wouldn't have to be scared into conforming any more.
But we all know what human nature is like. Maybe we ought to start fearing things like nuclear weapons and stuff, problem is with that, there's not encouragement to be moral.

>It's the age old question, are the masses sane enough to be allowed to look after themselves? The same social controllers who 2000 years ago knobbled some hippie for saying any different, and then appropriated his fan club, are the same social controllers who tap our phones, check our emails, write our history for us, and tell us what colour is this year's mauve.

Well its all worked out pretty well, that part at least I figure. Those masses that needed to be lead are being lead (whether they're being exploited or not is another matter, but at least they're controlled...ish), those that can lead themselves are leading themselves. With a bit of luck the masses that can't think for themselves won't interfere too much... unless their leaders decide to have something neat, like a crusade or an inquisition. I guess we'll just have to cross our fingers and just wait and see

>Maybe they're right. Maybe mankind without strict controls would go back to being a bunch of tree dwelling berry eating hippies, but hey, I bet they got laid more, chased more buffalo, and slept in the sun more than we ever will!

Heh, an immorality revolution! Maybe that will pass some time and cause some governements and ideologys to fall...