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

I toyed with the idea of removing all subjective information from the article and sticking only to the facts. I came up with something like this:

God

Anagram of Dog.

"Anyway, what I meant by 'shallow' is that the most significant quote in the piece is from Michael Palin. I know it's tongue-in-cheek, but it reflects badly on any argument or information being presented elsewhere"

I dislike quoting other people, because I feel I'm pretty good at finding interesting, impactful ways of saying things for myself. The Michael Palin bit seemed to fit, though. I think the point of researching a guide entry is to digest the information for others rather than to simply list a bibliography.

"'God had gotten into the spinach at the time'. Why take the rest of the article seriously after that? "

Who says anyone has to take it seriously? And what does being serious have to do with imparting meaningful information?

"OK, there is a lot of information in the article but the writer just shoots himself/herself in the foot by suggesting that the Jews believed they would be 'damned by this supreme reality' if they ate shellfish. That injunction, as with most other injunctions of the time, is about tribal law and hygiene in a desert, not about God."

Wrong. According to the pentateuch, eating shellfish is an abomination in the eyes of God, along with homosexuality and all the other stuff. Argue you the want that the Jews didn't take the idea seriously, but they did write it down and pass it on to future generations, and even today you might have noticed a large section of the local supermarket devoted to Kosher foods. I think that makes this a pretty supportable statement. Tribal law and hygiene in a desert was and is almost inseperable from Deuterocanonical Judaic theology.

"The sentence that begins 'Modern Western religions hold that God created the universe...' is facetious and ignores whatever Jesus had to say on the subject."

Apart from the fact that 2/3 of the major Western religions aren't really given to care what Jesus had to say on the subject, I agree that this statement could be said to have a facetious tone. You will note that I do not pass a value judgment on the belief itself, but simply describe in its starkest terms. I go on to note that Western philosophers and theists have struggled for a long time with the darker aspects of the implications of their cosmology, and describe some of the ideas they have come up with to do so. I think it would be difficult to communicate the enormity of the challenge they face without an apt description of the inherent contradictions found in various orthodox interpretations of the source mythology.

"And Fragilis, you can actually take a stance of pure scientific detachment when writing about God. You can do what Twophlag Gargleblap did for a significant portion of his/her article and tell us what the main perceptions of God have been. You don't have to comment on the relative merits of these perceptions. The bias of the article is, if anything, in the fact that only Yahweh really gets sneered at. "

I don't actually sneer at Yahweh. You didn't read it very carefully. I sneer at the perversion of a thoughtful and rich mythological system into a crass political game. I might do the same if I were to do an entry about Nietzche's works and how Hitler's Nazis twisted them to justify evil ends; and I bet I would get a lot less flack about it too. Perhaps to be 'fair' I could include a paragraph in the section on eastern thought describing how taoism has degenerated from a pure and rich philosophical system into a variety of superstitions practiced by illiterate peasants, but I recognize that my target audience here is primarily westerners. Instead, I chose to devote an entire paragraph to suggesting that there is a parrallel between the root concept, "I am that I am", and recent theoretical advances in metaphysical ontology. I think that, too is pretty clearly spelled out. If the reader decides to look into the implications more deeply for themselves, great.

"I really don't see the point in having an edited Guide entry that people are going to argue over endlessly"

Perhaps, like the vast majority of people here, I should focus on writing entries that noone reads? I'm not afraid of an argument In fact, I sort of enjoy losing arguments, because then I feel that I've walked away smarter and wiser than I was before.

Hrmmm


How's this?

God

Uniqueness is all.


Sums it up pretty well, hrm?

The spinach line does seem to cause some irritation - could it be changed to, perhaps, imply that it was the person who claimed to be *listening* to God that had been overindulging in vegetables? After all, we all know that God only talks to mad people... (or plays them 'Easy Listening' music...)

If you like losing arguments, I hope I'm not going to disappoint you by conceding this one!

I think what it finally comes down to is disagreement over the tone and presentation of some of your comments rather than the information content. I'd be a lot happier with the article if the two paragraphs following the 'Meaning of Life' quote were to serve as part of an introduction to the article or at least preceded the bits I've branded as facetious. The way it stands at the moment, you're going from the particular to the general, which I think coloured my judgement a lot. Your comments in your reply might actually be a useful addition to the article, particularly the bit about the perversion of mythology. I would suggest making all these comments first and then illustrating them with your comments about western religions in particular.

One thing I want to quibble over, though: I know the Pentateuch says eating shellfish is an abomination to God. My only point was that much of the Pentateuch is sound practical advice (under the circumstances) that became a religious command. The 'don't eat shellfish or you'll barf all over the desert' bit came first, followed by 'don't eat shellfish or God will smite you', followed by 'don't eat shellfish. That's an order'.

The middle one of those comments could be rephrased as "Don't eat shellfish or the supreme reality will damn you", could it not? As it is written in the article?

Yes, it could possibly be written that way, but I think the third comment is closer to the article's phrasing. The point I was making centres on the first of the 3 statements, though. This is becoming a really pedantic issue. Come on, Lucinda, I'm almost on Twophlag's side at this stage! Don't drive me away!

heh - I guess I'm not sure what your issue is exactly... I mean - he says that shelfish were a problem because people got anapha-thingumy shock - and sand under the foreskin (pleasant image) - which seems pretty much like what you're saying in the first statement - I'm guessing I've lost your meaning somewhere along the line...

To be honest I'm no longer entirely sure what my issue is either...

I think I misinterpreted TG and then he challenged me from a slightly different angle and then I... and then you... oh Lord, this argument business is so hard at times.

*sound of serious backpedalling*

Xedni Deknil, if you feel a scientifically detached article on God is easy enough to do, I challenge you to revise Twophlag's entry so it fits your definition. Then post the URL to the revision in this thread and we call all decide for ourselves if we agree. I, for one, considered such a thing only to realize very quickly that I couldn't do it.

You see no point in a Guide entry we will argue over endlessly? Then I must ask you why the Guide includes forums at all, if conversations (somtimes devolving into arguments) aren't an important part of it. I would submit that many of the best entries at h2g2 are controversial in nature. And what makes the Guide so wonderful is that they can be included, where a regular Encyclopedia would avoid or gloss over the subject in a weak attempt to seem impartial.

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in...

I said I didn't see the point of an *edited* Guide entry being a bone of contention. We could end up with six billion different edited entries called 'God'. I'm not denying Twophlag his right to write the article in the first place, or saying there shouldn't be a discussion of it.

If I have time, I will accept your challenge. In fact I think Twophlag's article is mostly there already. Though I suspect an argument will then begin over the definition of 'scientifically detached'. Certainly I see no problem in anyone writing a neutral account; impartiality doesn't have to make an article weak.

I don't know who it was who first applied the phrase "scientifically detached" to a description of God, but I feel an overwhelming urge to comment.

The concept of God and his/her existence is not objectively verifiable. In this sense, it is a subjective matter. Now I don't have a problem with that, but my perspective leads me to believe that a 'scientifically detached' essay on God is a complete and total waste of time.

Equally, in response to what Xedni wrote: "...writing a neutral account; impartiality doesn't have to make an article weak" - how can one write a 'neutral' or 'impartial' piece on such a subjective (i.e. intensely personal) topic? It seems to me that passion (for example) is a *necessary* part of such an article.

This is just my view, and I intend no offence to anyone.

Pattern-chaser

I don't know who it was who first applied the phrase "scientifically detached" to a description of God, but I feel an overwhelming urge to comment.

The concept of God and his/her existence is not objectively verifiable. In this sense, it is a subjective matter. Now I don't have a problem with that, but my perspective leads me to believe that a 'scientifically detached' essay on God is a complete and total waste of time.

Equally, in response to what Xedni wrote: "...writing a neutral account; impartiality doesn't have to make an article weak" - how can one write a 'neutral' or 'impartial' piece on such a subjective (i.e. intensely personal) topic? It seems to me that passion (for example) is a *necessary* part of such an article.

This is just my view, and I intend no offence to anyone.

Pattern-chaser

Fine. I understand the distinction between "edited" guide entries and the rest very well. But what are we going to do, forego having any entry on God whatsoever in the Edited Guide on the grounds that it might be contentious or biased? To me, that seems ultimately absurd on some level. Such an omission is, in and of itself, contentious and biased.

If you do the revision job, I'll be very happy to read it. Until then...

Ooops! Sorry about the double post. Can someone remove one of them (and this)? Thanks.

Pattern chaser

Afraid not Pattern Chaser - but it happens - don't sweat it...

I'm guessing this isn't really the place to be having a discussion on what should and should not be in the Guide - should we move this to the feedback forum?

I think there's some leeway for absurdity, opinion, and far-out speculation in any entry, or what would be the point?

Obviously, if I thought I could write thoughtfully about God and provoke no disagreement or hostility from anyone, then I wouldn't bother writing it here, I'd start my own religion up.

Scientific detachment is a bit of an oxymoron. Some recommended reading: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn and Myths, Models, and Paradigms by Ian Barbour.

I think I remembered a quote that would spruce up this entry rather nicely.

"It is terrible to see a man who has the incomprehensible in his grasp, does not know what to do with it, and sits playing with a toy called God."

-Tolstoy

Yup, yup.

Every single person has a different notion of God. My own notion of God suggests that it's looking at this discussion and laughing its metaphorical ass off.

How to write a neutral article on God:
The Jews worship a God. What, according to the Jews' sacred texts, is that God's name? What, according to the Jews' sacred texts, does this God look like? What, according to the Jews' sacred texts, is this God's attitude to those who worship this God? How, according to the Jews' sacred texts, has this God reacted in the past?
The Catholics worship a God. What, according to the Catholics' sacred texts, etc, etc, etc.
There is no need to comment on whether any or all of these Gods are valid or bizarre or eat spinach or whatever.
It is a simple case of being able to describe someone else's opinion or beliefs without providing evidence of your own opinion or beliefs.

I would argue that the devil is in the details. Along the way towards answering each of these questions, you must choose the language to express the answers in. There is no such thing as "opinion neutral" language.

I don't know how to reply to that. I honestly have no idea how to argue against that. I'm speechless.

I'm afraid I'm rather stubborn on this, as a reformed former journalist.

Fragilis wrote:

"I would argue that the devil is in the details. Along the way towards answering each of these questions, you must choose the language to express the answers in. There is no such thing as "opinion neutral" language."

I agree with Fragilis, but would stop short of such an absolute declaration. May I suggest that perhaps there *is* such a thing as "opinion neutral" language, but it has *significant* problems associated with it:

By the time you've finished taking all the non-neutral words out, what you're left with is stunted text which is difficult to understand. An analogy might be legal English, being read by the 'man in the street'.

Having removed every word that might be considered to harbour some form of bias, what is left is sterile IMO. Perhaps it is so changed that it has become, in effect, meaningless.

Opinion-neutral language is suitable only to describe things whose nature is wholly objective[1]. Thus - for example - describing a transistor in this way shouldn't be *too* challenging. 'God' is *not* such an easy topic.

Pattern-chaser

[1] Objective: "existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions" - from Collins (British) English Dictionary, millennium edition.