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

This piece has been rejected four or five times, usually over concerns that the community might find it offensive. I decided to go straight to the community and see if any of you want to offer some comments. Here's a handy link : http://www.h2g2.com/A252316

Enjoy.

To my mind it is not offensive but it might be controversial.

A balanced review of published thinkers might be equally offensive but acceptable in the Guide because no one could say that A didn't write B even if they didn't agree with WHAT was written.

To take some examples just from the first paragraph. "Generally speaking, a term defining reality's supreme manifestation of itself..." Who says? Where is this from? Your head? Or are you quoting some unnamed person?

On the other hand, " ...the word "God" has its roots in ancient Norse gutteral linguistics..." isn't a problem. It's true. Look up the word "god" in a dictionary and that's what it tell you (although I'm not quite sure what the term "gutteral" is supposed to add to our understanding in the context of religion rather than linguistics).

But then we have the phrase "the generally held notion of Divinity in Western thought tends towards a similarly superstitious (though not necessarily meaningless) cosmology." Again, who says so? You do. Does anyone else? Whose "generally held notion"? Not mine. Where would people who disagree with this view have their say?

Your article is very well written and I enjoyed reading it but it has a strong personal slant and, as such, speaks with the voice of Twophlag Gargleblap rather than the Voice of The Book. I can see why it has been rejected before.



Amy the (scout) Ant

I definitely agree with Amy the Ant, here. As a sub-editor, I would reject this one myself -- not because it's offensive (although there's a few lines in there that piss me off as a catholic, that's not a reason in of itself to reject an entry) but because there's so much blurring between fact and opinion.

Plus, I really think this would be a better read if it was split into several articles -- i.e., "the origins of godhood" and "extinct gods" and "comparative modern deology."

hope this helps some
mikey

TG: I think this thing could be made acceptable if some of your personal biases were restated. I'll highlight the ones I can see...

Loud Noise section: "it does seem fitting to note that the generally held notion of Divinity in Western thought tends towards a similarly superstitious (though not necessarily meaningless) cosmology."

Western Theology section: Basically the whole first paragraph. I love it, but I think it is important to note that, regardless of how he is portrayed in the Old Testament (which is exactly how you describe him) most Western theologies ignore all that and believe that their god is a gentle and caring father-figure. Perhaps you could add a paragraph discussing that outlook for balance... I don't know. But I am pretty sure Christians would be rather alarmed at your description of their god... sad isn't it?

"'gaseous vertebrate'": Isn't this an oxymoron? What does a gaseous creature need with a spine?

"life is about being close-minded and/or fanatical" - Very nonpolitic. True, but nonpolitic.

Eastern Theology section: "(although fanatics seem to exist everywhere)" - This part really isn't necessary. You're kinda beating it in with a hammer here. The sentence that preceeds this already carries the implication, and does so in a subtle way that is infinitely more appealing to me. It's a style thing more a fear of giving offense, in this case.

Yessue section: Last paragraph. Once again, I dig where you're coming from, but if you want this thing to be a Guide entry, you'll have to part with it.

I know you hate to part with some of those cutting observations, and I know you know they are true, but it is these statements that are keeping it out of the Guide. As a compromise, let me suggest that you keep one version of it, with as many cutting observations as you like, and we'll keep that one linked at the FFFF page. Then submit another version, slightly less critical, to become part of the Edited Guide. When the discussions erupt, you can always march into those and say all the stuff you wanted to say in the Edited version.

In response to Amy's comments:

Your suggestion that I quote published authors is one I have considered, but I felt a digested summary of various writings would have more impact. For example, you observe, "To take some examples just from the first paragraph. "Generally speaking, a term defining reality's supreme manifestation of itself..." Who says? Where is this from? Your head? Or are you quoting some unnamed person?"

Why does it matter? Just because of the subject matter? I could describe toast as 'slightly cooked bread' without naming a source for the description. I chose in this instance to go with the Anselmic ontological notion of diety (and referred back to it later in the piece) because that is statistically the most widely-held and commonly accepted definition in use by modern western theological scholars, and we are talking about a word of concern chiefly to western theists. I see no need to provide exhaustive supportive argumentation for obvious statements merely on the pretext that the reader might disagree with the statistics, definitions, or entymological facts being reported on. Every other piece researched for the Guide to date has in fact contained digested and summarized information concerning the topic at hand; otherwise I could just write up a bibliography and inform my readers of nothing, right?

"But then we have the phrase "the generally held notion of Divinity in Western thought tends towards a similarly superstitious (though not necessarily meaningless) cosmology." Again, who says so? You do. Does anyone else? Whose "generally held notion"? Not mine. Where would people who disagree with this view have their say?"

I refer to the orthodox (right-thinking, literally) doctrinal takes on theology offered up by the organized mainstream church to demonstrate a contrast between the scholarly notions debated in universities and the pablum foisted off on the masses. By definition, such orthodox conceptions are superstitious in nature, as they tend to rely heavily on ritualistic re-enactment of mythical symbols and ancient idolatrous rituals. Perhaps you do not consider worship of a crucifix totem, ceremonial canibalism, or blind obeisence to archaic fideist cosmologies to be superstitious, as superstition is in itself a subjective term; someone throwing salt over their shoulder on a regular basis might not consider it superstition or folly, either. As for people disagreeing with this notion and needing a say, I would welcome it... I assume that's what conversation forums are for.

"Your article is very well written and I enjoyed reading it but it has a strong personal slant and, as such, speaks with the voice of Twophlag Gargleblap rather than the Voice of The Book. I can see why it has been rejected before"

Actually, I refer you to the article on Tea, edited by DNA. "Screw them," says the author of that entry. "I like milk " If this is the voice of the Guide, then I contend that my article is very much in line with it. Perhaps the fact that I am not discussing a hot beverage, but rather an ineffible concept that has captured human imagination since the dawn of time, demands a certain degree of lattitude be given to those who contend that Ultimate Reality manifests as a patriarchal jewish war-diety, and are offended by any attempt to look past such notions and place them into context in the larger framework of human religious life. I would see that as an insult to the intelligence of the reader, however, and as such a violation of the spirit of the Guide.

Mikey:

Your suggestion that this article be split up into several isn't bad, although I'm not sure what an 'extinct God' is. Perhaps Nietzche might have an idea.

It's not me blurring the line between fact and opinion, it's life that does that. It might be argued that all facts are opinions, but suffice to say that the Guide itself is full of opinions on every sort of topic. My opinions are researched, carefully formulated, reasonably balanced, and I see that as the researcher's job. Again, why does the subject matter demand something different? Simply because a large number of people are testy about it? Why is that the Guide's problem? Following that logic, if I could find a sufficient number of people who believe that the earth is flat, and organized them to petition the Guide to remove all references to spheres from the edited entries, presumably the Guide would have to do it. Don't laugh... schools in the U.S. have actually started filling children's minds with midaevil cosmologies at the behest of right-wing protestant organizations who are offended by empiricism and logic.

I understand that the piece is somewhat confrontational in it's approach, but I don't see controversy as a bad thing, even for H2G2, if it generates discussion. I even repeatedly look to the roots of Western theistic practice and examine the relative meaning in comparative religious thought. I don't see that the balance you are seeking is missing.

Ok, I revised it. CS, I'm interested in hearing what you might have to say about the thing now. I mostly looked at the context in which I was saying what I was saying, and rearranged the content so that it would come across as more scholarly and less threatening.

Let me know

Can I just say that Douglas Adams himself wrote a load of wierd stuff about God that many people probably found either controvertial or offensive. And here we are, part of the spawn of Adams' creation, debating whether or not it is acceptable to publish a *serious* article on God.
Not wanting to cause trouble...just a thought.

I see you've removed the comments that I flagged as offensive, and although the whole still reads as from the skeptic's point of view, I don't think that will be a problem. Only a skeptic could write a balanced piece on this subject. I would be surprised if they rejected it in its current revision... but then, I think I've said that before, too.

I do have a correction for you, however. The John Cleese quote set off alarm bells in my head, but as I have my own copy of "The Meaning of Life," I was able to research it for you, at no extra charge.

Michael Palin is the speaker, not John Cleese. He starts them off with the prayer that begins:
"Oh Lord, ooo you are so big, so absolutely huge. Gosh, we're all really impressed down here, I can assure you..."

Then he leads them in song, which begins:
"Oh Lord please don't burn us
Don't kill or toast your flock
Don't put us on the barbeque
Or simmer us in stock..."

I originally posted this in another thread - but this seems to be the one where the subs are having their say.

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.

Perhaps you could rename the article 'God - The Great Uncertainty'. That would show that you are unbiased. Could be a step in the right direction there...

Duly noted, CS. I will make the change presently.

Ben, thanks for the support and encouragement. Your observations are acute, and I am glad that someone has noticed the pains I have taken to remain relatively neutral on the actual question of 'whether there is a God or not'. I think any such question begs an a priori definition of what is meant by the term, and have attempted to examine various definitions and points of conjecture on that topic. I have been thinking about it a bit more, and I have come to feel that the Guide is actually doing a huge disservice to its readers by playing the game of attempting not to offend a particular group of people (however large that group of people may be). I would consider the controversy they are seeking to aviod to be something very much desired. I'm sorry to say that it seems like this piece has gotten a very very British reception (didn't DNA say something about how Brits find it rude to go around thinking too much or saying thoughtful things?) You would think that anyone who cares to look up an entry on 'God' in a book calling itself 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy' in the first place would have to have some modicum of a sense of humour.

Ah well. I suppose I'll keep at it a bit longer.

Jamie...

I sort of wanted this to be a reasonably authoritative entry on 'God' for all intents and purposes, and have aimed the article to address this goal.

I wrote an article a while back on 'religion' and the title was changed prior to publication to 'religion - a perspective'. This sort of thing kind of cheeses me off, because any halfwit with two brain cells to rub together realizes that everything ever written, said, or thought about represents someone's perspective. It's not like the article on scrambled eggs needs to be retitled 'scrambled eggs - a perspective'. I suppose that's because there isn't a horde of yammering monkeys ready to howl for blood at the first whiff of egg cuisine heresy, but whatever. If this site aims to provide 'a comprehensive guide for life on earth' then it will have to deal with religious issues, with no two ways about it. I see no point making an attempt not to affront people's belief systems, unless the Guide seriously intends to remvoe all references to evolution, Darwin, philosophy, science, dinosaurs, and the fact that the earth is round.

I offer what I have to offer because noone else stepped forward to offer it first. It's researched... I've spent my whole life thinking about these issues and studying them. Dare I say it's reasonably well-written, even. So give it a chance.

Oh sure, I agree with you one hundred percent. There *is* a lot of pussyfooting around with the big issues as far as the Guide is concerned. However, in the end this is a business and, like all businesses, it wants to cover its own ass. So until some kind of coup takes place at the H2G2 offices we're all just going to have to bow down to the will of the editors.
By the way Eds, don't get annoyed - this is just a perspective.

Have you been reading the Cunnilingus thread? Perhaps there should be an "Agnostics only" section.

Keep the faith!

Now I, as a sub-ed, would approve this article after snipping out some of the more contraversial bits. I'd try to keep TG's tone the same, but would probably have to remove some of his trademark bite.

Those suggestions of Mikey are good for someone who is dedicated and wants to write 3 separate entries on the same subject, but I don't think most researchers want to be put to task as to what to write.

This sub-ed's oppinion

-jb

I am a priest. I have studied comparative religion, religious history, and religious thought for almost 35yr.

I found this entry factual and articulate, well researched. I have seen references for all statements, with one exception. I think the speculation about marijuana is unecessary, and the snippy little dig about God being high should go. The rest of the entry is about how religions view Deity. Making the only direct reference to Deity a derogatory one is cheap and unbecoming to one of your obvious intellect.

If I had been the author, I would have left out the reference to Lovecraft. Although he may have written things similiar to to some religious concepts, as an avowed work of fiction does it really belong here? Heinlein's 'Thou art God' does have direct correspondences in today's religious scene, and should have been backed up with at least one of them.

On the question raised in forum about "extinct gods" - gods only become extinct when none worship or give them power. All of the gods mentioned in the entry are still worshiped today. None of them are 'extinct'.

One could say that all cosmologies are based on superstitution. Whether Genesis, or Hesiod, or the Big Bang, or whatever, it's all speculation because, face it, We Just Don't Know For Sure.

Apparently I missed the original 1st paragraph of the 'Western' section, because it certainly doesn't read anything like the Colonel made it sound in his first post. I have to disagree, though, with his assertion that "Western theologies ... believe that their god is a gentle and caring father-figure." They may profess it, but children of a gentle and caring father don't live in fear of the belt.


Nice stuff, Twophlag
Bob

One could say that all cosmologies are based on superstitution, but one would be wrong.

su·per·sti·tion (spr-stshn) n.
1.An irrational belief that an object, an action, or a circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.
2.
a.A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.
b.A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or irrationality.
c.Idolatry.

I don't think the concept of the Big Bang falls under any of those categories... sure, it is possibly (probably? definately?) wrong, and sure it is extrapolation (speculation? guesswork? hogwash?), but superstition it ain't...

Neither do I think that all children of western theologies are in 'fear of the belt' - that seems to be a variable between different churches and, indeed, believers. In fact, many of them are so self-assured of their salvation and suchlike that they can actually smile when talking about the burning pits of hell...