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

Right, Buddhism...

I accept Recumbentman's point that, as practiced, it isn't necessarily true to its origin. For example, Zen is clearly derived largely from Taoism and the Tibetan school envelopes a mish-mash of animism and polytheism.

But leaving that aside...yes, I can acept that Gautama was a pleasant, wise man, and that his rejection of materialism and adoption of the Eightfold Path suggest one way to lead a happy life (although I'm sceptical that we should all adopt the same course. Who would feed the monks?). But I have a few things against it:
- It seems somewhat contrary to our biological nature. For example...Buddha lived as a celibate. Fair play to him...but *why*?
- The whole Nirvana thing: The aim is to achieve 'the snuffing out of a candle'. Well...guess what? That's what happens to us whether or not we first attain enlightenment. (I'm not clear on whether Buddha believed in the whole reincarnation malarkey or whether that was added later.).
- And is Buddha saying that the whole self-abnegation deal is the ideal? That it would be better not to be born (re-born?) in the first place? But that's all we have!
- I can understand it as a species of self-help. But underlying the teaching is the notion that the correct/enlightened way to conduct one's life is determined by the nature of the universe. See previous points re. The Book of Revelations.

And following on the last point...I think that's the origin of the conceit that practicing Buddhism is 'A Good Thing' - not just in the sense of making the practitioner happy, but in the sense of being (somehow) good for the universe. Why?

To me religion is entirely a question of how you identify yourself.

Like it or hate it, the 'cycle of rebirth' does express something about a choice you have: either to go along with your instincts (accept the cycle of life and death) or to extract yourself from the animal creature that gave your consciousness its platform (choose the snuff).

Me, I got married, had kids, celebrate all summer long whatever is begotten, born, and dies . . .

That's certainly true if you regard Buddhism (and other religions) as a species of self help. My problem - even with the fluffies - is when they start to equate human truths with the nature of the universe.

The Anthropic Principle? We've had a lively debate on that in The Irish Times recently, since a science writer put in a piece commending "proofs" of the existence of God, or at least the value of Christianity. A number of atheist fundamentalists got very hissy at him, and were excellently smacked down today by a Jesuit (you can always count on them).

BTW, the word "celebrate" in my last post should have been "commend". Apologies to WB Yeats.

Yes...you can always count on Jesuits to slap people down for not buying in to their intellectual structure.

Any links to the IT stuff? Sounds interesting.

Unfortunately I believe The Irish Times charges you for the privilege of reading its back numbers on line; in case I wrong them here, try http://www.Ireland.com

You do an injustice to this particular Jesuit: he took the protesters on on their own terms and showed them up as lacking in logical consistency, pluralist vision, and accurate reading of the article they were criticising. Bullseyes on all points. He also got in some delicious swipes, at one who made undefended claims (which we are supposed to take on faith?) and another who trotted out flasehoods (that the church had once preached flat-earthism, still opposed Darwinianism, and questioned quantum theory (that was no pope, that was Einstein)).

They were all attacking straw men; the original article did not claim to prove the existence of God, only that there were decent reasons to behave as though there were such an entity.

My own view is that if there were gods we must have no way of knowing it; as a puppet cannot know that he is manipulated -- that does not enter his script.

I think I have the issue. I'll read it tonight and would be happy to post it on to you.

Or scan and e-mail, which would be cheaper. Yes please.

On the church and Darwin...it looks like Ratzo may be back-sliding on that:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1859614,00.html

And they took an awfy long time to say 'Sorry' to Galileo, did they not?

Nice quote fro 'Everything Is Illuminated' by Jonathan Safran Foer. An atheist Jew says:
'I shall behave as God would want me to, were there a God.'

That is more or less Kant's "as if" philosophy.

As for Galileo, he was politicking for a special position from the church, as was his more timid friend and admirer, Descartes. The Vatican in its wisdom thought Aquinas was enough to complete the "doctors of the church" and started taking on its less scientific, more populist stance. The result was the heavyweight sickly pietism of the Baroque era. Had they gone the other way . . . see "His Dark Materials".

I can't help feeling Benedict is being naughty. With friends like the Catholic Church, what chance have the Intelligent Designers of persuading the American courts they aren't talking about Creation?

Article on its way to the gmail account Edward.

You may have a point, R'man. Say what you like about the Catlicks, but at least they have a degree of intellectual honestly. They know that ID equate to Creationism.

On the other hand...Ratzo knows full well that JP2's position on Darwin is untenable. He also knows that with evolution, the whole religious edifice comes tumbling down. Therefore, ID/creationism is casuistically necessary.

They do get temselves in a pickle, don't they?

Now this is an interesting question. I'm not (have never been) a Catholic, but Gnomon assures us that Darwinism has for years been perfectly accepted by Catholic teachers.

Darwin himself saw the theory as dealing a fatal blow to religion, but religion has a Draculoid tendency to rise from its grave. According to Wittgenstein, the religious feeling is a valuable impulse (even if the church is not a valuable institution) -- in fact, the same impulse as gives rise to any and all human values.

You're the expert on Wittgenstein, not me. However...can I suggest that he hadn't quite unpicked the meme cluster.

Religiions tend to share various attributes:
- a moral code
- social structures
- Fimbly feelings.

Atheists can similarly aknowledge all of these, but without lumping them all together. For example...the Fimbly feeling experienced when before great art is not connected with morality.

I suggest the Wittgenstein might have fallen into the 'all birds are ducks' trap. Just because religion (allegedly) *includes* a moral impulse, it doesn't follow that the impulse comes *from* religion.

The same mistake is oftern heard on Radio 4's 'Anodyne Homily for the Day' - the notion that it is only through religion that we lift ourselves out from savagery.

Ah no, I don't agree with those who suppose that morality only exists within a religious context, nor did Wittgenstein.

What he said was that ethics and aesthetics are the same thing, namely a sense of absolute (non-relative) value. Religion is included inside that, not the other way round.

OK...the first part I can agree with - up to a point. I'm not so happy with this 'absolute' word, though. I'd say that our aesthetic and ethical senses are consequences of our biology - but I'm not at all sure they're the same sort of beast.

Although...granted that the religious clump the two together, so maybe I'm wrong. Conceivably being good releases the same endorphins as a great painting.

Wittgenstein says you can count endorphins till the cows come home and you won't find a value judgment of the "good/bad" sort, the kind we use daily in moral questions. Do (re-)read the link I gave above; they've corrected the typos now. Here it is again: W's lecture on ethics http://www.galilean-library.org/witt_ethics.html

To the gentle lurker: this is the most readable bit of Wittgenstein there is. Otherwise see A1024156 (no, I never give up pegging away).

I'll print it out, read and digest.

Indeed, though, I can see why endorphins (or similar) might be a red herring. A 'Bad Person' can have a fine old time doing something that they know full well is bad.

A propos of nothing - here's a quote I came across while perusing the James Randi website:

"Faith; that's another word for ignorance, isn't it? I've never understood how people can be so proud of believing in something with no proof at all, like that's an achievement."

From Hugh Lawrie, no less.

http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-09/090106cruise.html#i6

Now reading Dan Dennett's "Kinds of Minds" -- good explanations of the category-errors (Ryle's word, not used by DD) that lead to just such mutual incomprehension between faithers and anti-faithers you refer to.