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

btw, is the Ancient Sumerian religion still around? I'd put that down as extinct automatically... (because the great unwashed like me don't even know ehere sumeria is - footnote please)

One would have to assume the Sumerian religion is extinct, since the Sumerian culture has been extinct for something like 5,000 years.

Not necessarily... elements of Sumerianism still show up in certain cabalistic and occult works, and the Sumerian mythos and pantheon had a certain amount of influence on many ancient religions, some of which is still evident today. Zoroastrians may have based their concept of Satan loosely on the Sumerian diety KUTULU. Blaaty's book, The Exorcist, which is either a study of demonology dressed up as a novel or vice versa (and is also an extremely Catholic work, incidentally) suggests a correlation between the entity he writes about and the ancient Sumerian demon-lord PAZUZU. Just pointing out that it still rears its head here and there.

Bob,

The reference to the burning bush being a marijuana plant was an oblique nod to the theory that many mystical revelations have been tied into the use of consciousness-altering substances. Many religions, particularly the aboriginal american ones, incorporated various rituals involving the use of such substances into their faiths because of this. I have even read certain treatises espousing the view that human consciousness may have evolved as it did in tandem with the free use of various special mushrooms. I don't particularly view the statement as derogatory, but I am not possessed of the conviction that drugs are evil. Surely 'God' gets stoned from time to time, or why bother making marijuana plants?

The nod to Lovecraft may seem a bit out of context, and perhaps I may rework it. I think the point here is to communicate the observation made by many people throughout history that the universe is rather random and hostile, and therefore God probably reflects this as well.

all points well taken.

forgot to shift out of AOHell mode when I stumbled into this place. it's been awhile since I've dealt with intelligent discourse online. Oh my yes, h2g2 will be very good for me.

Anyone heard of the Golden Dawn? It's kind of a cult based on ancient religions and rituals and as I understand it it's very popular. A bit like the masons. I think the Sumerian religion had some influence on the GD but it was mostly ancient Egyptian.

Good article... You've been reading Illuminatus! , haven't you?
One thing though, the paragraph "Considering that there is ancient Hindu poetry dating back several millenia describing fractals, and Zen koans going back at least as far describing Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, one may find oneself wondering whether those ancient mythmakers knew more about the universe than they were letting on."
As Asimov pointed out in one of his essays, there are only a finite number of ways the universe can be organised in general terms. A mystic can say 'the universe is expanding', 'the universe is stationary' or 'the universe is contracting' and have a one in three chance of being right. A scientist on the other hand will look for *evidence* that the universe is one way or another...

You'll find a link to Robert Anton Wilson's site from my page

I would disagree with the good Dr. Asimov here. I think the point of a relativistic worldview, particularly relevant in a discussion of taoist cosmology or, indeed, of fractal geometry, is that the universe can be perceived in an infinite number of ways, depending entirely on the parameters of the observer compared to everything else in the system.

In fact, many physicists are now turning to eastern philosophy to shed some light on the questions confronting them in science. David Bohm, the Nobel-prize winner who spent eleven years in India studying under a yogi before formulating his 'wholeness and the implicate order' theorem is a fine example. As Fritjof Capra pointed out, a mystic is someone who spends years training and studying and learning how to ask the universe a certain question in such a way that it reveals an answer. A physicist does much the same thing. The answer depends on what the question is and how it is asked, and may be more or less meaningful to the observer that is making askance. Many scientists are actually pretty short-sighted when it comes to piecing their answers together into an overall coherent picture. For example, most of the observations about the expanding universe are based on straightforward interpretations of Hubbel's red-shift theory, but fail to take into account the full implications of special relativity... they thus make the fallicy of interpreting linear process as a subset of universal being, rather than vice versa. More scientists should train in philosophy, at least if they intend to go around telling the rest of us what and how to think of their observations. Conversely, I wouldn't mind seeing more mystics pay attention to Western scientific methods. There's room in there for both of them to get along.

As always, it seems, this entry is bringing about some very interesting debate.

I just thought I'd pop in with a thought. If you're going to change the title of the entry, how about, 'Human Interpretations of God.' This makes it clear that you are examining humaninity's understanding of God, not God hirself.

Not a bad notion, but I remain stubbornly opposed to changing the name of the entry mainly on the grounds that I don't want to 'soften' it by goose-stepping around people's sensitivities. Besides which, 'Human Interpretations of God' seems mildly redundant. Whose other intepretations are there to speak of? *Ponders doing an entry entitled 'Canine interpretations of Dog'*

TG, what reasons did the staff editors at h2g2 give for rejecting your latest effort?

I recommended (my subbed version) your yarn should be accepted.

If anyone is interested, the rejected subbed version lives at http://www.h2g2.com/A429923

Its a good article, I cant see why it would be rejected?

Here's the rejection letter...

This is an excellent entry that will create a lot of debate on site.
However, as it stands, it could also create a lot of grief - especially amongst Researchers who do believe in God. Please consider toning down some of the more potentially inflammatory moments in the entry and do a resubmit. Thank you for a phenomenal read though.

Well, I think I did tone it down a bit... still biting but less aggressive. And it seems to have passed muster with a member of the clergy, to boot. I really liked the job Looneytunes did on the original though, I'd be grateful to keep him associated with this entry as the subbie. Any chance I could get a ruling on this?

What most non-believers (like myself) don't realise, is the fanaticism that religion instills in people. Non-religious people are not concerned with having a religious debate with anyone - they can rationalise and anlayse all of the arguments. Religious people on the other hand can get very threatened by 'heretical' talk, as it threatens their beliefs. Since religion is founded on blind faith, this is the central nervous system of their beliefs you are threatening! Hence the problem. And it's not too wise to upset such an intolerant, and LARGE group of War god worshippers (just look at Northern Ireland) - they get upset, and before you know it H2G2 is pronounced 'the devil's work', and as such spurned by a large group of potential contributors/ readers - not something a business ought to do if they want to be successful!

Personally I enjoyed the article, and think that you should keep it going as a non-edited article - it *is* an interesting topic for debate.

My own opinion is that even if a god as portrayed in the bible (Old and New) *did* exist, why would I wan't to worship such a petty, intolerant and egotistical god? Doesn't sound much like a perfect being to me! And did anyone notice the slip up in the 10 commandments? 'Thou shalt not worship any god other than me'. Sounds like God himself was admitting the existence of other gods...

Not all relegious people are fanatical, but there are a select few (mainly americans ) who give others a bad name, after all part of many christian beleifs is tolerance rather than hatred is it not?

> Not all relegious people are fanatical

No, of course not! Didn't realise I'd implied that, but looking back, evidently I did. Whoops. I have a couple of good friends (a married couple incidentally) one of whom is training to be a methodist minister, the other who is a catholic, and whom you can have interesting religious discussions with without them getting offended.

But there are fanatics out there, and not just the americans, but more dangerously the arabic states, and muslim countries, all founded in the same beliefs.

> ...part of many christian beleifs is tolerance rather than hatred is it not?

Making the Irish situation, and more historically the Crusades and Inquisition, all the more ironic really...

SW.

Yes, they are ironic, but i personally beleive that none of those issues are/were truly to do with religion, it is/was just an excuse. The inquisition was a way for a few men to make themselves feel powerful, the crusades were a war with an excuse and NI is just "us and them" violence but also with an excuse, which doesnt justify it...

Christian beliefs tolerant? I should think not. Paul orders his people to convert the heathens, and Jesus orders his followers to have nothing to do with unbelievers, for fear of their evil tainting them. And if that weren't enough, we have 2000 years of crusades, inquisitions, and general mayhem to set us straight. People are becoming more tolerant, but the religions themselves haven't changed from their roots.

I'm glad to see this article is attracting so much positive attention, and as there are many unfamiliar faces around here, I suppose a public seervice message is on order... those of you who like this article might be interested in visiting the Freedom From Faith Foundation, where we regularly have discussions on this same sort of line, and we house a library of links to H2G2 articles on various freethought subjects: http://www.h2g2.com/a254314

we're wandering OT, aren't we? "Evil done in the name of religion" is a whole seperate entry...

Back on the beaten path, I'd prefer to have Mr. Christ nailed to a cross of wood, rather than "nailed to a stick". All the evidence is that if he existed and got killed by the bad guys, then he got a cross, and that's the sort of detail that many people find significant, and should be left in. Plus, "stick" sounds ever so slightly insulting

I'd prefer it if the Entry wasn't so certain about his existance in the first place - but I'm happy to wait till it gets Edited, and then hijack it's fora. That's what they're there for.

I'd also like to have some mention of the Norse, Roman, Greek, Egyption gods (besides Eris, of course). I think that's another viewpoint on God that belongs in this Entry, and you have the bonus of being able to be as insulting as you like...

One query - is this an entry on God, or on religions that worship god(s)? Some of the comments, such as :-

"The Deuteronimists worshipped Yahweh as a
war diety, and honoured His intercession on their behalf in battle by ritually sacrificing livestock to him."

could be replaced by something roughly like 'The god of the Deuteronimists was a war deity, who demanded sacrific in exchange for aid in battle". Another example :-

"Orthodox (right-believing) members of these various faiths bicker amongst
themselves about who has all the details right, but tend mainly to agree that religious life is about proving one's devotion to an institutionalized concept of divinity in order to avoid the afterlife of eternal torment due to them as punishment for their shortcomings"

could be replaced by 'These various gods have minor differences, but in general require devotion to themselves in order for people to avoid the afterlife of...'

In other words, what's important is not what the religions are like, or what the rituals were, but what the gods were supposed to be like - the justification for those rituals, in fact. Why did Yahweh require circumcision? We know (or can guess) why the priests said he did, but what were the reasons, if any, they gave on his behalf? Why did Jesus require cannibalism?

Either that, or change the name to "How God is worshipped"...