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

Aren't we getting to that, in some sense, by the constant promptings that cause TG to add more content?

probably - but I thought there it be a way of doing that while preserving TG's sanity...

LOL!

Twophlag: Yes, this piece does keep growing, doesn't it?

I guess I must have caught the revision before last, because the section on Eastern theology had been expanded when I reread it today. There is a mention of Allah in your entry, but in my opinion (and I could be very wrong!) the Muslim religion diverges sharply from Christianity at about the New Testament. (Mohammed being the equivalent of Jesus)

No, no, no... Nobody wants you to write a book (although it'd probably be pretty interesting!) It's just a little frustrating, because you're so specific in some instances, and so generic in others.

What of my other suggestion to make it a more general definition? I know you're trying to represent each culture's view of Deity... Again, I feel like you're not representing all cultures equally. If you're not able to expand the "archetype" of Hindu polytheism, then maybe contract the western "archetype." I don't want to see all this cool copy go to waste - so maybe after the general definition, another entry with a definition of the western god would be in order.

You probably feel very persecuted - here you are trying your best to present a definition of god, and we're all picking on you! I guess because a definition of god is a little more complicated than a definition of nose hair. Applause and kudos for sticking with it!

Twophlag - are you going to be able to give this Entry up? I mean if it does get into the Edited Guide, are you going to be alright with that, because eventually someone is going to want to add something to it, and eventually one of their updates will be accepted, and the whole Entry will be updated. Now this seems a real labour of love, but once it is in the Edited Guide you will have a lot less control over it. Just wondering Until later....
BCNU - Crescent

I don't imagine that being a problem. After all, any addition would have to come through this forum, and would probably be noticed by a FFFF member, who would pass news on to TG. And then the heads could roll. Or, at least he could include his own comments in the discussion forum, which us poor subs have to look in when editing.

-jb

TG: Congratulations! This article went before the Editors through the Scouts scheme, and it was rejected once again. I'm positive that no other article has ever been rejected so many times. If I have contributed in any way to this monumental achievement, I am proud to do it.

Anyway, the reason I bring this up is because Anna offered some very useful and valid criticism, in my opinion. Because of this, I asked for her permission to reproduce the message. Not only did she agree, but she also made a tentative promise to look at it again and offer more thorough criticism sometime later. In the meantime, here is the text of that message:

"The beauty of a lot of topics in the guide is that they present complex and/or controversial ideas simply. See the recent entry on Agnosticism; the series on Condoms; the entry on Astronomy for Amateurs.

I have read the entry on God again. I'm not offended by it, but there are some aspects of it that leave me and others, if the threads are anything to go by, perplexed. I think this entry definitely needs an introduction on what a god is and afterwards all the different gods can be listed as examples. That might make things clearer. Also, there are a lot of sentences that make assumptions and/or assume knowledge, which will have to be defined and will make editing the entry problematic.

Here's an example:
"Before too long, the revolutionary message that God lives in people and not in a temple found its way into the hands of a fellow named Paul, a self-appointed theologian with a propensity for missing the point entirely."

In what way is the message revolutionary? Why does St Paul miss the point entirely?

The statement seems to raise more questions than it answers, which while that's not necessarily a bad thing, especially in a theological discussion, it doesn't make the concept of God easily understandable - which is basically what we're aiming for.

I agree that this topic should be in the Guide. I sympathise that this is an incredibly difficult topic to deal with, and I sincerely hope that the author doesn't give up on it, but, as it is, this one's going to need a bit more work!

Anna"

Hi Everyone,

And here I am again! I've had another look, and have come up with the following. The God entry must be held to a high standard - just look at what we're trying to define: something that we can't see; that some people claim to feel and converse with, but others do not; that may or may not have created the universe; that some say (rightly) has been the cause of terrible acts of war and human rights abuses, that others say (rightly) is a benign, good force that is a comfort for humanity and is a positive guiding influence on our morality.

The trouble with the God entry as it stands is that it doesn't represent those that do believe in God - it represents some of the feelings of those who don't believe in God. And that's fine, but it doesn't go any way to defining God for those millions who go to church, say a quick prayer because they feel like it, have dedicated their lives to a religious order, or have faith in *something* but they're not sure what.

The entry evokes controversy because it takes what appears to be an Atheist's perspective. It is one sided. The trouble is that a number of Researchers *have* raised eyebrows at some of the statements in the God entry - even before we've put it on the front page. Here in the editorial office, we periodically look at and talk about the God entry, and in our latest effort to get something in the Guide that is balanced on God, we've decided that we're going to make God a topic of the week so that the Community can create a collaborative entry on the subject - it's going up on 29 November. We really hope that the creative process behind this will be as balanced and as intelligent as some of the discussion on the subject thus far. I suspect we will be including some of the content of the existing God entry, because there are some incredibly valid points in there and, it cannot be denied, it is well written, it's just that there are elements in there that need clarification.

As a point of interest, Looneytunes has subbed the entry, and has done a remarkable job of it. His version can be found at http://www.h2g2.com/A429923.

I'm sure that the debate will continue, it's a thorny issue after all... but thanks everyone for your input - we are listening and we're really hoping, just as you are, that there will be some progress!

I think I suggested this earlier - and I still think it's a good idea.

One comment - it's in the nature of these things for some of the most interesting comments to happen as a result of hearing other comments. Perhaps it could be done as a 'two round' thing? Do one round of comments - make an interim entry by combination, and then do a seperate round of comments.

Slightly slower, but I think it'll make the entry more satisfactory to everyone...

Hi Lucinda,

Sorry we missed your suggestion before - like it! Your idea about having it as a two-round thing is a good one too. It'll go up for a week on the 29th, then there will probably be a couple of weeks between when it comes down and when it goes up again, just to give us time to write up the first lot of results.



Anna

I was originally going to suggest the entry be titled "Religion", not "God". Then I found out there was already a "Religion" entry. Since the entry is about God, not religion, the Lovecraft stories are as relevant to the concept of God as the stories Moses wrote down.

I'd title the entry "Gods", since it mentions so many. But it's a very well written entry.

Anna,

I think some of your criticism is quite valid. One thing about trying to write an entry such as the one in question is that it is sometimes necessary for the scribe to sit back, have a beer, and give up thinking about the topic for a few weeks, before coming back for another look with (hopefully) a slightly better perspective on how the thing comes across to others. I have been working close to seventy hours a week for the last month or so and as such have barely peeked in at H2G2, with the result being that I do indeed see some more changes I would like to make. Hopefully they'll be along soon, maybe this weekend if I can get a chance.

In the meantime, I did want to take a look at one or two of your comments.

"the trouble with the God entry, as it stands, is that it doesn't represent those tht do believe in God."

Well, not as such, no. But in some sense, perhaps that is like critiquing a piece on Posh restaurants because it doesn't represent those that prefer fast food. The issue here was not, I think, to deal with specific beliefs or to attempt to establish one thing as true or another as false... I was simply digesting what I knew, or thought I knew, about the topic at hand, which I think is quite a bit, although certainly not definitive.

Does it appear to be an Atheist's perspective? It may be that it does, but that was not my intent. I think it may be that your own biases on the matter are colouring your views of the subject... to play (ahem) devil's advocate, I think it might be worth pointing out that any sort of thinking about matters of religion that does not tow the party line of one church or another is generally labeled as atheism or heresy. One fellow by the name of Frederic Spong (a Catholic archbiship, and a heretic, for that matter) once pointed out that a common error is to assume that the only possible alternative to theism is atheism, but this ignores the rather large number of people who live their lives as nontheists... in certain Eastern philosophical systems, the question of whether there is or isn't a "Ghod" doesn't even come up, because it's irrelevant to what they hold to be "true" or meaningful about the universe. One of my goals was to make sure that their viewpoint was well represented in my discussion of divinity.

And even though this IS a Western publication, I'm not sure it does justice to the topic to take Judaeo-Christian or Islamic theism as the starting point and then explore alternatives from there... surely we've all had enough of that in church. I thought the Guide should have a slightly more high-handed approach to the topic, like, ok, there's a bunch of hairless monkeys living on this planet called earth and here are some of their ideas about how they got there and why. And yes, although it does give away my own biases, there is a subtext present hinting at what this one particular hairless monkey happens to think about the topic. I tried to keep this from going over the line... one thing I hold pretty closely to is the notion that just because one person is partly right doesn't mean anyone else is necessarily wrong.

I certainly look forward to seeing the results of the collaborative piece, and I will, as I say, take another gander at my own effort as soon as I have a chance. I think I will judge the success or failure of the final results of all this by whether the people involved in bringing it around are able to get over themselves enough to stop being offended by everything and simply enjoy the process of examining some new ideas that may break them out of their current abstractions.

My belief is that the concept of God was conceived a few seconds after man discovered fear. Maybe we should start from there!

Hi Twophlag Gargleblap,

All valid points.. I'm quite looking forward to the collaborative effort!

Anna

Lentilla, your hypothesis is interesting but it only leaves me with more questions. Do animals believe in God?

Okay. I have digested all that was said.

To summarise what I think are the (most) relavant points:

1. This is a superb article, and should end-up int he Guide, edited somehow.

2. The Guide contains the universe, and should contain every opinion .. and it contains this one. So there. The Edited Guide is an attempt to cross categorize that information into a meaninful structure UNDER ONE VOICE, the common voice of the Guide.

3. We can never acheive a common voice on this issue. Period. As much as anyone believes their beliefs, and their litterary/common sense/historical sources, there are balanced answers from all sides, with just as much precedent.

4. The title 'God' doesn't work for this article. It is about religion, and a cynical atheistic bent on it, however balanced you believe it is ... it isnt. It is opinion, as there are, currently no knowables in this area, as in any area, so you say .. but that doesnt mean it should be included as is, rather, the oposite. You scrambled egg analogy is inapropriate, in my opinion, as it is less important to properly define "The Absolute Right View on Egg Preperation" than it is to tackle this issue. Also, it is unbalanced in a different way, pertaining to the title .. it does not mention all Gods, such as the Egyption variety, or many others, and has some spurious entries, such as the Lovecraft one, and though I am a Discordian, that reference as well, is not acorded the right weight in the sturcture, being mentioned as much as, say Buddism. I realise that to include everything Godlike .. is imposible, which is why this may be a process that could take a century. Can we even define the concept of God .. its just that ineffible.

5. The legal/reality/advertising question. If the Guide chooses a slant on religion and embrases it as its own, it will close it off immediately to expansion in some areas, and to some markets. When we are all richer than astronaughts and kicking back on our private jets, then perhaps we can make that stand, but not yet. I appologise for the reality, but the Guide is perhaps on too shakey ground right now to broach that section of the Universe.

So how do we resolve this debacle? We don't. Not in a way that will satisfy any of the parties involved.
I say the article stays as is, but is not categorised .. try to remember .. that is all that the Edited Guide is, we are not arguing that this article should be allowed to be published, or in the Guide -- it already is. ... So what do we link the word 'god' to in the rest of the edited Guide? I suggest someone create an artcle that simply says "Figure this one out for yourselves, guys'. And we leave it at that.

~Beeblefish

Excellent (if rather fight-picking) article. I just have a few spelling mistakes, and one scientific quibble, to report. I know 'diety' has already been reported but it still seems to be in there... Anyway here they are:

deuteronimists should be deuteronomists
ernest should be earnest
barbeque should be barbecue
Nietzche should be Nietzsche
obeisence should be obeisance
milennia and millenia should be millennia
diety should be deity
wontonly should be wantonly
responsability should be responsibility

And the scientific quibble: the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not have a problem with the development of life, or with localised increases in organisastion in general. The 2nd Law states that the overall disorder of a closed system will increase over time. A living thing is not a closed system - it has energy poured into it constantly. Local decreases in entropy are permitted, much as a river flowing downhill will briefly flow upwards over a rock without contravening the law of gravity.

I believe that 'barbeque' is the correct spelling in UK english - as in 'bbq'. I've been wrong before, though...

I thought this at first, too, but in the dictionary it's spelled with a 'c'.

Fragilis: I've always wondered!

Maybe our pets think of us as gods, but most of the time we're just suckers. Especially at the dinner table.

There has been some research done on the relative intelligence of animals. Dogs and parrots have the IQ of a three-year old at best. There's this great Nova episode about animal intelligence - in the program, a parrot was able to identify an item (a key) the color of the item (blue) and what it was made of (wood.) We'll probably never know how intelligent a cat is, because most of its behavior is based on instinct.

I suppose what we need to find out is whether animals are self-aware. Being self-aware indicates that they can recognize the existence of other individuals. Once you reach that stage of reasoning, it also makes sense to think that there's another individual who has influence on what happens to you.