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

I'm agnostic, meaning I have no belief either way about whether or not God exists. He/she/it may exist. But then again, he/she/it may not. I find my attitude towards this can shift more towards one side or the other on a given day, but I never feel strongly enough to change my general sense of uncertainty.

I believe a person's morals originally come from society, but they can and perhaps should be changed to better suit the person. I am generally optimistic about humanity, and one upshot of this is that I feel people should spend more time believing in themselves and the people around them. I also believe that humanity improves over time, with a few dips where progress was shut off or even sent packing for a while.

I "rebooted" my spiritual outlook about 6 years ago. Before that, I was in the process of getting rid of all the baggage that came from being a "backsliding" Christian. Trying to figure out just WHAT to believe I narrowed it all down to three points:

1) I beleive in the Interconnectedness of all things.
2) I believe in the cyclical nature of the universe.
3) I believe the universe is not random.

I was pretty sure that 1 & 2 would stand up pretty much on their own with point 3 being the only tennuous one of the bunch.

Well much has been grafted onto those the past 6 years.

The primary componant of my beliefs are Celtic-inspired. A reconstruction of pre-christian (some use the term 'pre-roman') beliefs of the Gaelic peoples. Called at one point Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism, and now Senistrognata (an old-Celtic (the language) word meaning "ancestral customs") Its more of a worldview and participation in a culture than a religious pursuit. Within Senistrognata there is room for Pagans, Christians, and Agnostics.

Personally I am polytheistic as I have said before, my gods not being archetypal in nature, but interpersonal. That is, like a person each god has his or her interests but is not defined by having domain over any one paticular attribute such as war, the weather, or the sea.

Though I beleive in many gods, I don't have a strong personal belief about "The Creator of the Universe". Perhaps I have Deist leanings in that department. I do not equate my gods with the level of the Judeo-Christian God. If anything my gods are powerful spiritual beings somewere on par whith a high-choir of Angel, Seraphim, Prinicpality, Power, or some such (to use the biblical labels). The Irish/Celtic Creation myth was supplanted by the Christian one when Ireland converted.

I bet alot of you thought I was Buddhist. I admit Zen Buddhism holds a great appeal for me. I really don't see it as totally incompatible with my Celtic Worldview, actually I find more compatibility as I learn about it.

My most recent insight had to do with what I saw a major incompatiblity. The Celtic world view is terenary in nature, seeing things in three as oppossed to the common dualistic worldview of direct opposites. The "Celtic Third" as I call it is a boderland, a liminal place that has apspects of two oppisites, is part of both, but is its own thing entirely. The illustration I usually use is the shore. We have Sea, we have Land, but between the two is the third element connecting the two: the shore. It is niether, both, and its own thing -- the third. This concept of three is illustrated with the symbol of the Triskelion.

Zen is a system of duality. The familiar symbol of the Yin-Yang is used to illustrate this. Black and White circling one another, with an element of its oppisite within. What I recently discoverd is that between the Black and White, there are an infinite and unseen shades of gray betwixt the two. I had found my third in the Yin-Yang. I can't see it but there is a confidence that it is indeed there!

So to sum up, I am an open-minded Gaelic Pagan with Zennist leanings.

NEXT!

Much the same as you, CS. I tend to be a realist, which in normal person terms means 'cynic'.

-jb

I llike your three points. Except I kind of believe there's an element of randomness in the universe. I sort of think of the universe as one living entity, composed of all sorts of tiny parts (like us). The elements of chaos and randomness are what make things interesting, I think.

It may not be actually "random." It may just be that the patterns are sometimes too complicated to understand. I'm willing to concede that. I just kind of like randomness sometimes.

Very astute. You might want to check out the field of trivalent logic, (the universe contains an infinite number of maybes between the yes and the no) the study of which begins to offer solutions to problems like wave-particle duality and the uncertainty principle in physics. There is also a similar motif in chaos theory, which describes how systems on the verge of becoming dynamic behave when a source of energy is available to abet the transition (the 'shoreline' between the sea of chaos and the land of order if you will).

For the record, if asked, I tend to try as hard as I can to avoid saying that I believe in anything. I think belief is fundamentally the key element that sums up just about everything wrong with us as a species, and that it is the starting point of most cognitive conflict, and the excuse/justification for a great deal of physical conflict.

I recognize everyone's right to think, feel, hope, guess, discuss, debate, consider, ponder, and theorize that they might have gleaned some piece of useful information from the morass of riddles and puzzles that we term to be reality. But any belief seems to presuppose a commitment to an objective revelation of truth, and any study of twentieth century physics, ontology, or perception psychology will reveal just how elusive truth, if it exists, actually is.

That being said, if you are asking for a poll of opinions about life, the universe, and everything, here is my take on things as best as I can narrow it all down.

1> Any notion about the existence, or non-existence of 'God' is meaningless without a working definition of what is intended by invoking the term. The same could be said about 'reality' and 'truth'. Semantic deconstructions of most ontological statements can reveal quite a few preconceived fideist assumptions, and my personal preference is to proceed from waht can be said to be meaningful.

2> I think that human civilization is reaching a point of apotheosis where we will be confronted with the choice to pull our heads out of our collective asses and begin the next phase of our evolution, or else we will die out. This means recognizing that we are all feces-flinging, screeching monkeys, and then making a conscious choice to rise above our heritage and our past. We aren't a dominant species on Earth, we're a blight in ecological escape.

3> I consider myself essentially a religious person. I think that useful religion, or 're-binding' would encourage heresy and questioning, and focus on helping people to place themselves and their own existence into context. I strongly support the notion that lessons in astronomy, biology, physics, metaphysics, ontology and philosophy could take the place of Sunday worship of a giant fart in the sky. Put the heretics in the pulpits. As Nietzche said, the creator seeks co-creators, not smears of slime to kiss his ass and tell him how great he is. People often slam religion, thinking that the Baptists at the Scopes Monkey Trial or the Islamic terrorists blowing up planes, or the Irish Catholics blowing up children are good examples of it... none of these institutional belief systems has a thing to do with religious life at all. Religion, like irony, is one of the most-oft misused words in the English language.

4> Thou art God (see 1). Get off thy ass and fix your universe, and fill it with life and warmth, because really, as far as any of us can tell, right now the thing is mostly empty, cold, and black.

We have only a few returns right now, but I'll go ahead and make some projections on the available data anyway...

I posed this question because I was curious to see where the binding thread was... in essence, what is it about this Foundation that has brought so many people of such diverse belief systems (or nonbelief systems, in TG's case) together. The striking thing is that, even though we all find a different context for it, we seem to have this common thread:

1) We humans control our own destiny.

2) We are capable of giving ourselves our own morality.

3) Anything and everything that is wrong with human society and the planet as a whole is entirely our fault, and we need to see to fixing it ourselves.

I'm sure there is a bit of room for disagreement in their somewhere (the entire Foundation would implode if we ever found anything that we could ALL agree on ) but it seems to sum up some of the things that have been said here.

We can probably all agree that orgasms are one of the finest things one can have lots of to enhance one's quality of life.

The entry on God (that I have been nursing along for a few months now, pretty much since I signed up with this place actually) has been edited (by a competent editor for a change ) and is awaiting approval by the powers that be. You can view the penultimate copy at http://www.h2g2.com/A419177. Please let me know what you think. Also, if this thing does finally make the front page, I hope you'll all sharpen your pens and help defend it against the god-botherers. Should be some righteous opportunities to do some verbal fencing.

Well Sellers, I definatly agree with all of those points. Though I would argue that it is really only ONE point seen from 3 different approaches. It all boils down to personal responsibility.

I know it was only one point... I just put it up in three phrases and simple terms so that, if any believers were lurking about, even they could understand it.

It looks good, TG, and I'm looking forward to seeing it on the main page. We haven't had a good spirited debate around here in some time.

"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"

That's the fourth time through the mill. I will not bow and 'soften' this thing just to appease someone's right to not be disabused of the notion that the universe is being run by a gigantic alpha male monkey with a beard. Screw it. I'm going to make this thing five times more decimating to blind fideism and then abandon it. I'm really getting down on the editorial policies of this site... you would think that anybody who actually signs on to H2G2 as a researcher let alone an editor would at the very least be enough of a fan of DNA's work to have a goddamn sense of humour. Isn't he the one who said something about God vanishing in a puff of logic? Bah.

If debate and controversy are good things, then where's the problem?

But I don't think h2g2 necessarily thinks controversy is good. In general, I see a deep desire to avoid it. In part, this is why so many people are drawn to the "good atmosphere" of the virtual communities here. There is very little of people being negative about anything, God or otherwise.

I dunno. I think the concern about Christian backlash is indeed very real. I disagree that this should be cause for dismissal of the entry, though. Perhaps a public rant might be in order.

Or somehow get DNA's blessing on it. Hell, lets invoke H2G2's "god" on the God entry. But a rant on one of the feedback forums may be in order. Its kind of crazy that entries in the original (but fictional) guide could not get approved in this incarnation of it....

I guess this quashes all hope of ever submitting my entry on WWJD?

Sympathy, Twophlag - my Entry on Pascal's Wager got rejected for much the same reason :-

"Quite interesting, and took me back to my old school days, many moons ago,
where people used to argue about said 'wager'. However, the piece veers a
little too much towards opinion and away from the topic in hand, so it can't
be put into the approved guide as it stands. Good try though."
http://www.h2g2.com/A341920

Bleh

If you've really given up on the "mill" you could hand it over to someone else here at the FFFF - there's got to be someone with tact here...

Speaking of entires that don't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting approved, here is my latest:

http://www.h2g2.com/A409213

Its the WWJD? entry I mentioned a post ago... As always feedback and criticism are welcome and encouraged.

Sellers, thats TWO links you owe me on the Foundation page When will the next update be?

LOL!!! That was so funny I had people at work looking at me funny because of my reaction.

And no, I don't see that there's any chance whatsoever that it will appear in the Guide. It will be dismissed as an opinion piece, I'm certain, if Twophlag's entry on God is considered controversial.

It's a pity, too. But on the other hand, it's a darned good thing this organization exists. Otherwise, why bother?

Sorry to post again so soon, but I just thought of something.

It seems to me ZenMondo could include a few other things Jesus did, like:

* Wash all his best friends' feet
* Hang around with a prostitute
* Spend a little time in a Roman prison
* Develop a God complex
* Slowly die of dehydration as a result of crucifixion

I would submit that if anyone turns their nose up at the first three actions, or fails to fulfill the last obligation, it's rather pointless for them to imagine that they are immitating Jesus. But then, that's just my humble opinion.

Nah, it could work - pointing out how difficult doing What Jesus Would Do actually is, as a kind of praise for him, will do as the traditional bone tossed to the fundies... and possibly sprinkling in some of the socially acceptable things he did.

Is it open to suggestions?
- Wither vines
- Rise again on the third day
- Drink vinegar and myrrh
- Get forsaken by God
- Talk to doves
- Raise the dead
- Cure sickness
- Forgive sins

Perhaps someone should do a WWJD purity test?

Sorry about that, Zen... we'd been discussing the Pagan article for so long that I assumed the link was already up. Both articles are now up. As for the rejection... I'm floored. I couldn't detect any bias in that article at all, it seemed very balanced and unattached to the subject matter. I guess what this really tells us is that H2G2 wants nothing published which questions the established orthodoxy... which is sooo sad, considering its history.

That's okay, though... keep writing this stuff, if only just to spite them. Articles will still be published at the FFFF, which is a much finer collection, if you ask me.