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

I've come here via DNA's page, and was asked to look at 'God' by Peta. Well, when dealing with a potentially contentious topic, usually on sex, religion or politics, you'll notice that edited entries on those subjects are straight down the line. See the series of entries on condoms, for example. Facts should be absolutely right, and your argument should be rock solid. Was Judaism really originally a mystical polytheistic religious practice? Was the burning bush really a marijuana plant?! You've chosen a difficult subject, hats off to you, but the entry will need to be more factual before it goes into the edited guide. That said, I think that you can certainly write. The piece is entertaining, light-hearted, anecdotal and bringing in Michael Palin was a stroke of brilliance...

Perhaps the entry would be helped considerably by a healthy dose of footnotes. I respect the Guide's mandate to play the middle on these sorts of topics, and have tried to do that where possible. Still, I wonder if it fair or reasonable to hold me to 'facts' on a topic that by its nature eschews them. An entry on 'love' would run into the same problems. All I can offer instead is research, but I think that is a fair start.

Judaism really was a mystical polytheistic practice originally, although it wasn't called Judaism then. Most religious life evolved gradually over time from simple ceremonial burial rituals and various myths towards more complex cosmologies and codified sets of laws. It is very hard for the modern mind to imagine the paradigm experienced by the average practitioner of Judaism both before and after the advent of the Deuteronomists, but what records remain seem to indicate that early Jewish theologians took a view of nature (The whole I AM THAT I AM bit) not entirely dissimilar from that espoused by mystics in other traditions, all the way from Yaqui shamanism to Zen Buddhism, the basis of which is an attempt to define the undefineable, or to answer the question "AAAAAAH, WHAT THE HELL IS THIS REALITY THING ANYWAYS?"

The bit about the burning bush being a marijuana plant sounds like flippant sarcasm, but is actually an oblique nod to the major role played by mind-altering substances of various kinds in all sorts of early (and some modern) religious life. I think we Westerners tend to have a knee-jerk eyebrow-raising reaction to any mention of marijuana being taken seriously for such purposes because very few of our governments take kindly to us smoking or growing it. I am reasonably confident that the myth of the burning bush is in fact directly symbolic of the presence of narcotic use in the development of early mystical thought, either broadly or specifically. I have even heard it argued convincingly that the development of human consciousness was helped along by the discovery of mushroom farming. Whatever your view of drugs, or of God, it is a fact that a good deal of drug use in a religious context goes on to this day, whether one is munching peyote or simply drinking red wine.

Thanks for taking a look. I'll keep tweaking it, but I have to admit I'm starting to feel a bit discouraged. I think an insightful Guide Entry about a topic like this must of necessity challenge people's preconceived notions about it, although I respect the need not to offend too many of them.

-TG

I hope Anna's comments helped Twophlag Gargleblap.

You say that an insightful Guide Entry should challenge people's preconceived notions, and not offend too many of them... whereas, an edited Guide entry really shouldn't offend anyone at all. If you can edit the entry to present the accepted facts, you' have a really good opportunity to discuss people's preconceptions and beliefs in the conversation threads. There's a difference, forum discussions can add so much to the way that a guide entry is read, but the guide entry itself cannot contain supposition or conjecture.

It really would be a shame if this doesn't go in, please try and re-edit and I promise I'll come along and contribute to the undoubtedly lengthy debate in the threads...

What do you say?

For what my opinion's worth, I think you're playing just a little too safe with this line.

The rules say that an entry should not "be offensive", not that it "shouldn't offend anyone at all". In order to "be offensive", it should offend a generalised typical, representative person - and I don't think this entry does that.

I don't think the article's perfect (TG probably doesn't either). It certainly isn't encyclopaedic, definitive, or objective. It is, on the other hand, interesting, well thought-out, and thought-provoking. But I'm not arguing *for* this specific article so much as *against* the boundaries you seem to be setting in this ruling.

No entry on God will ever cover one millionth of one percent of humanity's thoughts on the issue.

No entry on God can be factual, in the sense that we have precisely no "accepted facts" about God, even on the fairly basic question of His (or Her) existence.

No entry on God will ever manage to say anything without offending someone.

Does that mean we will never have an entry on God?

Doesn't myth and mythology mean necessarilly incorrect? Could it be replaced by "story", or somesuch, which doesn't hold quite the same degree of "ha ha ha - let's laugh at the natives stupid beliefs"...

Sure, it *is* a myth - but not everyone knows that...

I did a bit of work on the thing. I looked it over pretty carefully, and made sure that it played more or less down the middle as per Anna's request. There are some cutting observations present, but if you look at them carefully you'll notice some pains to avoid overt value judgments concerning any of the subject matter. I added some new material, too.

What do you think Peta?

More rewriting. Mind letting me know how I'm doing here?

-TG

Twophlag, don't be discouraged by the fact that a few editors find your entry unworthy to be branded "OFFICIAL." Just be happy that you've written a great unofficial entry. I find this whole idea of "Official" and "Approved" entries more elitist every time I think about it.

Be encouraged by the fact that when intelligent people browse the Guide, beyond the "Approved" entries into the guts of the Guide, they'll find hundreds of entries titled "GOD" and yours will be one of the best.

Well, there's some comfort in that Actually, though, the process of rewriting this thing continually has proved to be beneficial overall. Some interesting comments have been made by various people in the Peer Review forum thread for this piece, and the feedback is generally constructive.

Still, there is just a tantalizing little nagging itch to have this entry become, well, OFFICIAL, although I'm not sure why.

Peta, Anna, I've actually got the endorsement of a career priest on this thing. I've checked the facts and histories against several sources. I can post a bibliography of online and offline resources for study. I just need... a sign. Is there room in the Official Guide to Life on Earth for an entry on the Guy held responsible for making it happen?