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

You can see Peta's response to TG's complaint at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F63567?thread=108553

Heh. I would like to publically apologise for an earlier comment made wherein it seems I referred to people identifying themselves as "Christians" as "stupid". What I SHOULD have said in the interests of aesthetic correctness is that "Christians" tend to vary in intelligence, but are, in my humble opinion, victims of a mutated strain of the Sumerian mind-virus spread by the Cult of Asherah. I hereby withdraw all negative comments I may have intentionally or inadvertantly levelled at Christianity in the past. Christians are smart. Christians are froody. Yay for Jesus.

See ya'll in the Landover Baptist forums

The Colonel wrote "If it gets too stuffy around here, I'd like for us all to be able to move to a common alternative."

Yes, please don't all go without leaving a forwarding address! I'd miss you all, and I don't think I'd be the only one.

Pattern-chaser

Let's see.

Proposition 1: Christians believe in Christianity. {fact}
Proposition 2: Christianity is false. {in my opinion}
Proposition 3: People who believe in false things tend, on average, to be less intelligent than people who believe in true things. {in my opinion}

Conclusion: In my opinion, in general, Christians are stupid. Using standard linguistic abbreviations to drop redundant clauses, I can state "christians are stupid" just as effectively as stating "h2g2 rocks!" for "In my opinion, in general, h2g2 rocks!".

I dunno - it's all a bit weird really. But if Anne Robinson can get strung up for claiming the Welsh ae useless, then I guess it's consistent, if not something I'd want to be proud of...

Well, I disagree in some way with all three (though I agree in some way with all three), but I'll pick on #2 just now.

"Proposition 2: Christianity is false. {in my opinion}"

The only way Christianity can be 'true' or 'false' is insofar as it depends on claims about matters of fact. I consider Christianity to be fundamentally a set of axioms about how to live, and I don't know what you could mean, if for example, you were to say that Jesus' commmand to love our neighbors is 'false'.

GTB

I think existances of heaven, hell, angels, devils, ressurection, the crucifixion, ascension, etc, etc, etc are all assertions of fact, though...

Sure, and I would say that those assertions are not fundamental to Christianity. If someone believes in all the hocus-pocus and doesn't follow Jesus' commands, then they're not a Christian. If someone follows the teachings, then they're a Christian whether or not they believe any of that crap, whether they know it or not.

Yes, I'm just imposing my own definition of "Christian," but you were doing the same. You chose a definition of Christian that made it merely analytic to claim that Christians are stupid, and I choose one according to which one can be Christian without being stupid. Perhaps we should have two different words?...

Insofar as any religion is solely associated with its dogmatic assertions, it will seem stupid, and insofar as it is associated with its core teachings about how to live, it has a chance to seem worthwhile. By putting up blinders to any part of Christianity besides its attendant superstitions, you guarantee that it will only ever seem stupid.

GTB

Lucinda said "In my opinion, in general, Christians are stupid." I acknowledge your opinion, and your right to hold it. Your right to express it, though, is a different matter.

I rather hate myself for arguing in favour of censorship, but let me continue:

There are laws in many countries forbidding the free expression of negative opinions about race and religion (to name but two). This is NOT because there's a good and logical reason, but because the human race has a proven track record of fighting to the death with those who have different opinions on these matters. The laws are there for the pragmatic purpose of avoiding all-out world-wide never-ending war.

After the 'founding fathers' had sailed across the Atlantic together, they realised they could never co-exist unless they agreed to respect each other's religious views. I believe this found its way into the American constitution.

Thus the high moral principle of freedom of expression founders on the real world need to avoid killing each other.

*sigh*

Pattern-chaser

Myself, I would simply distinguish between Christian behaviour (your defn) and Christian beliefs (my defn). But it doesn't really matter - exactly the same argument could be used by a Gnostic to claim that (in general, etc, etc) atheists were stupid. I'm not claiming absolute truth here...

I'm not hugely impressed with the core teachings on behaviour to be honest - I've no quarrel with them, but they're nothing special (to me) over what you'd read in a self-help book or suchlike. And self-help books tend to be somewhat quicker at getting to the point than the Bible...

But the belief that "The sky is blue and 2+2=5" is still stupid - you can't make your beliefs less stupid by 'diluting' them in sensible ones...

GTBacchus, I feel insulted that I might be labelled a Christian because I follow behaviors described in the Bible.

Perhaps I decided to 'do unto others' before I learned to speak, because it suits my world view. Perhaps I have my own internal moral compass that prevents me from stealing, killing, and so forth completely regardless of what the Bible says. Perhaps I have completely different reasons for behaving in ways you presume are fundamentally Christian.

In many ways, people are the products of their culture. Christianity has had a great influence over Western culture, thus influencing the morality norms. From your hypothesis, tons of people who define themselves as agnostic, atheist, or as adherents to other religions like Buddhism and Islam would be 'Christians.'

Don't I have a right to decide what my own religious beliefs are, without your imposing your views on me?

Patternchaser, the American constitution does not prohibit hate speech of any kind. American judicial law as developed through dozens of court cases has instead fallen on the side of free speech for racists and bigots (along with everyone else) -- as long as the speaker did not threaten or commit physical violence upon the hated party. Otherwise, TG (if American) might face a fine, jail time, probation, or civil law suit penalties for his post to h2g2.

There is a big difference between ethics and law. Some people feel it is unethical to make broad statements about people based on their social affiliations, as represented by class, race, religion, sexuality, and so forth. And some people go even further, believing it is unethical to allow such messages to be heard.

Others (myself included) believe that such statements should allowed to be out in the open, where their merits can be publicly debated. I believe that rational discussion does more to prevent prejudice than silence and/or ignorance.

Fragilis wrote: "GTBacchus, I feel insulted that I might be labelled a Christian because I follow behaviors described in the Bible."

Insulted, Frag? Whoa. I didn't mean to insult anyone, and I apologize to anyone I offended. That said, I will now continue to say what I think, with no malicious intent.

"Don't I have a right to decide what my own religious beliefs are, without your imposing your views on me?"

I haven't imposed anything on you. Check again. I can define "Christian" however it suits me, and I can discuss my definition with whomever I please. If I decide that my definition of Christian includes people who don't consider themselves Christians, that is purely an internal event in my head. It involves no imposition on another person. I have neither told you what you *do* believe, nor what you *should* believe.

I'm thinking aloud and experimenting with definitions. Why invest your feelings in my experiment? Maybe I'm toying with the idea that one can be both a "Christian" and an "atheist" at the same time, and I'm playing with the language to see what would have to give to make such a thing possible. Why would I undertake such a project? Maybe I identify fairly strongly with certain aspects of Christianity and with certain aspects of atheism, and I'm exploring my own psychology through language. How is that offensive?

Meanwhile, Fragilis, I agree completely with your response to Pattern Chaser.

Fragilis wrote: "GTBacchus, I feel insulted that I might be labelled a Christian because I follow behaviors described in the Bible."

Insulted, Frag? Whoa. I didn't mean to insult anyone, and I apologize to anyone I offended. That said, I will now continue to say what I think, with no malicious intent.

"Don't I have a right to decide what my own religious beliefs are, without your imposing your views on me?"

I haven't imposed anything on you. Check again. I can define "Christian" however it suits me, and I can discuss my definition with whomever I please. If I decide that my definition of Christian includes people who don't consider themselves Christians, that is purely an internal event in my head. It involves no imposition on another person. I have neither told you what you *do* believe, nor what you *should* believe.

I'm thinking aloud and experimenting with definitions. Why invest your feelings in my experiment? Maybe I'm toying with the idea that one can be both a "Christian" and an "atheist" at the same time, and I'm playing with the language to see what would have to give to make such a thing possible. Why would I undertake such a project? Maybe I identify fairly strongly with certain aspects of Christianity and with certain aspects of atheism, and I'm exploring my own psychology through language. How is that offensive?

Meanwhile, Fragilis, I agree completely with your response to Pattern Chaser. Let the free speech flow! If I disagree, I'll say so, but I'll never ask that you be censored!

Nor would I censor you, GTBacchus. But I will have a friendly argument with you.

I define myself as bisexual, but a gay person once told me I was 'straight' despite my definition. Why? Because I was living with a man at the time and not also with a woman. Obviously, this person had a different definition of bisexuality than I do. He then proceeded to treat me as an enemy, based on the fact that I was a 'straight' person masquerading myself in the queer community, presumably for some ill purpose.

I define myself as agnostic, but you choose to view me as a 'Christian.' You certainly have every right to believe what you like. But I do not want you to treat me like you would a 'Christian.' I do not want you to feel more friendly towards me, don't want the social acceptance that Christians often get from each other, don't want your expectations of me to rise based on a categorization I disagree with, and so on.

What if I later do something that doesn't fit your definition of 'Christian' behavior? Will I lose your esteem? I would much rather do without your esteem, rather than risk losing it, if this esteem is based on a false understanding of me.

I want to be viewed on my own terms, and I want to be understood for who I am. I don't appreciate being treated differently by someone who assumes that they are better capable of deciding what my religious beliefs are than I am. My desire for you to accept my self-definition is based on this concern of being treated better or worse than is actually merited. I guess I am a very honest person, and don't want anyone getting hurt (including me) by differences of opinion.

Lucinda wrote: "But the belief that 'The sky is blue and 2+2=5' is still stupid - you can't make your beliefs less stupid by 'diluting' them in sensible ones..."

I'm assuming you were using the general 'you' there. *I* don't believe in all that hocus-pocus gibberish, but I *often* consider myself a Christian. You could disagree, yes. But then your argument would change to "People whom I consider Christians are stupid. There may be non-stupid people who call themselves Christians, but then again, they're wrong and therefore believe something false, so we go back to the earlier claim that Christians, by any definition, are stupid."

Hmm... I wasn't expecting that turn-around.

I would not consider 'the sky is blue AND 2+2=5' to be one belief. I would call it an unhappy union of two independent beliefs, one stupid, one not. Same with 'God created Earth in six days, AND I should sow peace rather than discord.' Totally independent beliefs.



When you say that you're not impressed with Christianity's teachings on behavior because they're common and can be found in any self-help book, you remind me of a girl with whom I watched Casablanca several years ago. After the movie, I was ecstatic, because I love it, but she was really unmoved. "I dunno... it's so full of *cliches*" she said. sigh... Whatever happened to credit where credit's due?

GTB

Goodness, Fragilis, you seem to be imputing all sorts of feelings and behaviors to me, of which I have exhibited none! Shall I 'feel insulted'?

"I define myself as agnostic, but you choose to view me as a 'Christian.' You certainly have every right to believe what you like. But I do not want you to treat me like you would a 'Christian.' I do not want you to feel more friendly towards me, don't want the social acceptance that Christians often get from each other, don't want your expectations of me to rise based on a categorization I disagree with, and so on."

I will treat you exactly as I treat a 'human,' how's that? I have no expectations of you, and the minute I show a social preference for people based on their religious beliefs, please stab me to death.

"What if I later do something that doesn't fit your definition of 'Christian' behavior? Will I lose your esteem? I would much rather do without your esteem, rather than risk losing it, if this esteem is based on a false understanding of me."

I can't imagine what false understanding you could be talking about, considering that I hardly know you. *You're* the one who claimed that my definition might make you a Christian. I'm just toying with the idea, not going around applying it to people. My esteem for you is based *entirely* on your posts here at h2g2, and from what I've seen, you seem like a friendly and intelligent person. If you become belligerent or nincompoopish, my esteem for you might change, and that's fine. I assume the reciprocal is also true. I might add, though, that I know better than to form a blanket judgement of someone's character based on a few lines posted on a web-site somewhere.

"I want to be viewed on my own terms, and I want to be understood for who I am. I don't appreciate being treated differently by someone who assumes that they are better capable of deciding what my religious beliefs are than I am. My desire for you to accept my self-definition is based on this concern of being treated better or worse than is actually merited. I guess I am a very honest person, and don't want anyone getting hurt (including me) by differences of opinion."

I accept that you are agnostic. I will not treat you differently (than what?), and I do not assume that I am better able to decide your religious beliefs than you are. Here, brace yourself, I'm about to shout for emphasis: "I'M PLAYING AROUND WITH DEFINITIONS, EXPERIMENTING WITH LANGUAGE!" I accept your definition as yours, why not accept my (provisional) definition as part of my experiment, and see where it leads? It might be interesting! We all know where the old common definition leads: it leads to 'Christians are stupid.' Boooor-ing!

GTB

Just to let you all know, Lucinda's first post (above) was missing for a few hours this morning, some moderator tried to zap it. Guess the editors backed off.

You know, one of the things about being reasonably intelligent is that a lot of ideas and practices of other people sort of seem pretty stupid most of the time... but the term is usually applied in a superlative sense, rather than as an insult or judgment. I hear Bill Gates, who is smarter than just about everyone else on earth put together, refers to just about everything he disagrees with as "the stupidest thing he's ever heard".

The smallness of one's mind and the ease with which one takes offense are correlated I think. It's a shame that H2G2 has to pander to the least common denominator.

I've decided to stick around a while longer and see what develops. I don't see myself writing too many entries though =P (not that I have been anyways).

Bill Gates smarter than everyone else on earth put together? That's just about the stupidest thing *I've* ever heard...

I have a couple of Guide-like entries sitting around on my desktop, but to be honest I'm also thinking twice about putting them up on this site nowadays. I'm thinking of looking elsewhere for a place to park them. I wonder if it's really worth writing anything much for h2g2. Anything controversial gets censored, anything good gets pretty well ignored anyway by the denizens of middle England who seem to have taken over the site - we don't get paid, we don't really get any kudos either, so what's the point?

It was indeed a general "you"... I should probably reword it as "you can't make your belief systems less stupid by mixing sensible beliefs in with the absurdities". Is Christianity the unhappy union of hocus-pocus with useful teachings.... perhaps - though I think putting it that way is exaggerating the effect somewhat...

Would you feel unhappy if I suggested that since you agree with part of the standard Christian belief system (tm), and disagree with other parts, that you might therefore be part-christian? On the other hand, the same logic would mean calling Protestants "part-Catholic", which would probably cause offence, so maybe not.

Which means I probably ought to summarise by accepting that trying to categorise the vast range of belief systems out there into pigeon holes is counter-productive and loses sufficient detail to make generalised statements meaningless. Oh well, point withdrawn.

If christians are people who behave in a christian manner, then presumably we're (almost) all followers of some religion which says "thou art God". There ought to be a generalised term for such things... egotheists, perhaps? Anyway, that's how every seems to act in practice, no matter their professed religion... {yeah, heavy cynicism filter on today, ain't it?}



I'm not hugely convinced of the originality of Christianity's teachings on behaviour, though - but I guess that's largely historical. They did do a good job of populising it, though, so they get some credit for that, I guess. But all such things ought to evolve, and offer new ideas more suited to the times we live in - otherwise we'd all still be buying "The Little Book of Manners"...

I thought we did it for love, Lear? Anyway, looks to me that you've had reasonable success with your guide entries, hmm?

And what's that supposed to mean?

I think basic tenets like 'It's wrong to kill other members of the tribe' and 'Treat others as you'd wish to be treated yourself' (which is basically just reciprocal altruism coded in a more hypocritical way), are pretty well universal in human cultures throughout the millenia. I don't think there's really anything there that's specific to Christian doctrine.

Another feature of Christianity which I think is near-universal in human culture is contempt for outsiders - the idea that people who don't share the faith are heathens who need to be converted for their own good, or burn in hell. Xenophobia is also demonstrated in other primates such as chimpanzees, which would seem to indicate that it has roots far deeper than one or other tin-pot religion. Unlike other primates, however, we humans have conscious intelligence and the ability to overcome (to some degree) our animal origins. In order to do this, however, we have to be aware of them. Evolutionary science teaches us that diversity is actually a healthy thing, and enhances our own chances of survival. Whether or not we humans as a species have the intelligence to use this valuable insight, is an open question...