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

Following repeated rejections of this piece on the ground that it was to biased, I have attempted yet another rewrite of it. I left in most of the pointed commentary, but revised the context a bit and supported it with other people's observations so that it comes off a little bit more scholarly.

Let me know.

This is very good. It is obviously written from a particular perspective, but all the better for that. It seems to me to be fairly neutral about God him/herself but pretty sharp about the ways in which people have chosen to respond to him/her.

Why has it been rejected? Obviously not on stylistic or scholarly grounds. So presumably it has been rejected because it might offend people. Well, most of the responses you have had have seen the merits in the article, even if they disagree with specific points.

Hey Scouts, Aces, Subs, could this not be published as an edited entry with the comment at the top that a personal piece? Writing about religion is just as personal - and just as valid - as writing about an individual experience of disease. This would mean that the Guide would fulfill its mission to write about "Everything". And the Guide itself would avoid the danger of offending the over-sensitive.

Twophlag's shoulders seem to be broad enough to take the flack without resorting to flaming. I find it offensive if it has been rejected on grounds of content, so you are damned whichever way you jump.

It isn't about God anyway. It is about the human response to the God-shaped hole in our psyches - ie religion. Would changing the name of the article make it less rejectable?

One final comment about religious people. I have known a lot of these in my time, and they fall into two categories - those who have a sence of humour, and are secure in their views of the world, and those who don't. Most christians of my acquaintance would enjoy - and acknowlege much truth in - what you have said.

Sorry about the long posting, but I had a lot to say.

I also have a some specific points about the content.

"Orthodox" with a big "O" is a separate branch of Christianity from Catholicism and Protestantism. I have a godmother who converted to Russian Orhodoxy when I was about 8. It is a really cool branch of Christianity with a great liturgy and ritual. Of course "orthodox" with a small "o" is similar in meaning to "conservative" with a small "c".

Personally I am not so sure that spirituality is just for humans. I can see no logical reason why it should be, and I had a cat who was a Zen master. He could materialise and de-materialise at will. I certainly saw more (eastern) spiritual practice in two of my cats than I have seen in most people. (Awareness, living in the moment, chanting (purring); controlled and focussed physical stretching. The only things that let them down were the mouse-murders). Of our other two cats, one was a bitch not a cat, and we only had the fourth one for a year or so, and I never really worked out what made her tick.

And where did you get the gen about the burning bush being cannabis?

The article made me laugh, and I loved it.

Ok folks, I could use all the support you can muster on the peer review page... let's see if we can talk the editors into taking another look at this thing.

I was aware of the difference between Orthodoxy and orthodoxy, and took pains to keep to the general term which tends to apply to most institutional religious doctrines. Orthodox means literally 'right-believing', just as the term orthoprax refers to 'right-practicing'. In general, then, the term can apply to any group of people who think they have all the answers to the exclusion of anyone else.

Regarding the cannabis; why do you think my page is called 'puffs of logic and other mind altering substances'? It's a subtle reference to DNA's take on 'God vanishing in a puff of logic' cross referenced with my theory that many mystical revelations originate with the aid of mycanoidal and herbal stimulants.

Like the "wafer and the wine"? Originally "Eat this piece of mouldy bread and have a swig, and you too can succumb to Religous Extacies(tm)..."

The ongoing quest to see this thing approved leads to further revision (groan). How am I doing?

It is a brilliant Entry, I enjoyed reading it no end (I havn't seen it since its first incarnation However I see the problem with it going into The Guide at the moment, it isn't balanced. Unfortunately the way round this is to put in the Orthodox view of God - or several of them (in the same section would still give an idea of the possible absurdity). I would recommend this Entry for the Edited Guide if it had that in. It really deserves to be in there Hope this helps, until later.....
BCNU - Crescent

Oh and you may enjoy Roy Harpers HQ album - he has ideas similar to yours, and in song form Give it a shot Until later...
BCNU - Crescent

When I say 'It really deserved to be in there' I mean the Entry in the Edited Guide, in case there was any misunderstanding Until later....
BCNU - Crescent

Oh my... I'm going to have to re-visit.. I know I liked the original.

'Nonnie

Hmm.. I don't see a 'lack of balance' here, as I don't see this as an anit-anything piece. I see it simply as a historical piece, and I say let it in. Now. As is.

Is this still on the peer review page and can someone give me an exact URL so I don't have to go plowing through all the rest (because if I do that I know I'll end up getting lost or side-tracked )?

'Nonnie

Hey there 'nonnie

Sorry to have missed you earlier... the forum in question should be easy to find as it is now attached to the entry itself. I don't see that the collaborative entry discussions generated enough fodder for a lot of revision, although I suppose the eds will do what they see fit with it. Take a look before it gets butchered, though.

Sheer f*****g brilliance... and I thought the original incarnation was quite good. Bravo my friend.

Ah, if only the powers that be shared your point of view on the matter. Have you seen the proposed "collaborative" entry that will be going in in place of this one? I was prepared for some compromise but that thing is, well, a gigantic ass, sorry as I am to say it. I was disgusted enough that I have asked them to not associate my name with it, a request which seems to have been ignored. I might wind up pulling an ffmike soon (grumble). It's a shame, because I thought H2G2 of all places might be the ideal forum to discuss life, the universe, and everything from an alternate perspective... instead, it seems the Thuddites have overrun it. Sigh. No wonder Doug Adams is nowhere to be found.

I don't believe I have... Where is the other one? It's a shame that those who make the decisions can't seem to abide differing opinions on religion.

'Nonnie

They ask for your opinions, but routinely ignore them if they think they are in the least "controversial". Last year, in the entry for "Things that make your skin crawl" I made two suggestions - Tomato in food and Small children. Roughly three times as many people posted to agree with "Small children" as agreed with Tomatoes, yet Tomatoes were mentioned in the final entry while Small children were not. Whatever the editor's personal opinion, it is clear that there are others like myself whose skin crawls in the proximity of children, yet they took it upon themselves to disenfranchise them. The only recourse you have is to post a "Footnote" thread on the final article, pointing to the original version.

They do accept controversial stuff from time to time. I guess it just depends on what mood you happen to catch them in, or whoever happens to get your piece for editing. Some feel the urge to censor more than others.

This piece was rejected because they want balance in a controversial topic. In the case of god, that's really very silly. The arguments just don't balance. The arguments against are far stronger than the arguments for. It's just that most people have been brainwashed, or are too lazy to research the topic themselves. So when TG puts out a paragraph on one theism that sets a tone of "and here we have yet another in a string of absolutely rediculous ideas by utterly rediculous people," he is giving the topic all the *balance* it deserves.

And the collaborative piece gives equal voice to any crank that halfway acts like they know what they're talking about. I've even been included as one of the cranks: http://www.h2g2.com/A472033

I donno CS. I suppose it's fair for the eds to want a theist's viewpoint represented in the final version of the entry, (and my piece did give the theist viewpoint at least a few sentences of consideration ;P) but what got to me is that there was no research put into most of the material offered. When writing this piece for myself, I found myself digging up Akkadian myths from one source and having to place their origin on the timeline by looking into the development of Sumerian ideology in another place, etc. etc. It was fun, and educational, to do so. So, whether I am right or wrong in my assertions, why am I being replaced by postcard-length essays on what other people happen to believe about the topic? That's the rub... we're supposed to be researchers, not proselytizers.

Letting the discussion degenerate, as it did, into a comparison of "creation vs evolution" is abominable... the Guide should be above such "dumbing down". I would be much happier if the theistic viewpoint was represented in a rigorously straightforward manner by, say, a priest, or someone with the education to speak authoritatively about the orthodox viewpoint.

I thoroughly agree with you there. It's quite obvious from your article that a lot of research went into the piece -- I'm quite impressed, actually. I shudder to think what I'll find in the other window (where I sent your link off to load), but I'll finish this posting afterwards...


Arggggggggh.

'Nonnie

[appears from the blue]
I make a point of rejecting all religions except buddhism, which seems to be a cunning way of getting the message "There may be no God, but what goes around comes around" through.