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

Don't let it worry you

It's a bit like when I hear 'young persons' music' and I think "But I've heard this kind of thing before...only noisier...and scarier...and BETTER!" (muttermutter...The Arctic Monkeys!...I ask you!)


Changing tack:
Christopeher Hitchens' legendary attack on an icon:
http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/

(and there's a nice picture of a bonobo on that page too - linked to an interesting story. I especially liked: "Joseph Stalin sent an animal-breeding expert to Africa in hopes of creating an army of half-man, half-monkey soldiers. Attempts both to inseminate women with monkey sperm and impregnate female chimpanzees with human sperm failed.")

I leafed through a book called something like "The Myth of Mother Teresa" years ago; it said much the same thing, but went into plenty of detail over the amount of money accepted from extremely dodgy individuals. I have nothing against a charity accepting money without asking hard questions, but it becomes slimy when a dodgy donor gets enthusiastic endorsement in return.

Could it have been Hitchens' slim volume, 'The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa In Theory And Practice'?

He talks about the benefactor who donated some of the $250M that he'd stolen from small investors. During his trial, she wrote the judge (Ito - of OJ fame) a letter asking for lenience "...Do as Jesus would do." After his conviction, the prosecutor wrote back to her: "Jesus would return a donation if he knew it was stolen money. If you like, I can put you in charge with the individual investors." He didn't receive a reply.

She sounds like a thoroughly hideous character. I don't want to single out Christians for specific criticism. (no...honestly!)...but it does seem rather peculiar that her *piety* was regarded as a virtue (by others - and even more so than by herself). She doesn't seem to have actually *done* anything for the suffering - other than give them a dirty floor to sleep on where they could "offer their suffering to God" while they died. Without pain relief. The immense income from her foundation went not to the buying of medical treatment but to...convents...with her name attached.

Impiety is an underrated virtue.

(Thankfully not all Christians are as bad as the one they hold up as a shining example.)

Okay Ed,I won't continue with the evolution stuff, because I *do* know too little (I'm going to borrow a book by Richard Dawkins from the library next week ). But maybe that's the point that Pilgrim's about: The minority of people are scientists, or know a lot about science. So, I have to believe in evolution and I have to believe in neurobiology, I have to trust what I read about it. So I think there *is* an element of belief in the scientific explanations of how the world works. For me at least.

Another thing, I was thinking this week: What is the current theory on how the universe started? Two particles crashed and this started everything? I really don't know, would be nice if someone told me... Someone trustworthy , so I can *believe* them... - But then: where did these 2 particles come from? The thought that someone like the Christian God made these particles seems about as probable as a little fairy with butterfly-wings and a magic wand that started the universe. So, if we are thinking about the possibility of a *god* at the beginning, it would have to be something very different to(from?) the being that e.g. Christians worship. But if there was a being to make these particles - where did this god come from? Just thinking... I'm confusing myself Probably too little sleep...

>>The thought that someone like the Christian God made these particles seems about as probable as a little fairy with butterfly-wings and a magic wand that started the universe. So, if we are thinking about the possibility of a *god* at the beginning, it would have to be something very different to(from?) the being that e.g. Christians worship. But if there was a being to make these particles - where did this god come from?

And it was the "So what created God, then?" argument (aged 12, with a CofE Canon) that solidified my Atheism. As it happens, I have a Theoretical Particle Physicist friend who suggests that one *could* choose to call the process/partical/event/thingy that kicked off the whole shebang 'god', if one wished - but this is nothing to do with the sort of god mentioned by religions, and nothing to do with you or me.

Moving on (since this isn't meant to be a forum for convincing people to be atheists; it's a discussion amongst the converted)...

There was an interesting comment in this programme:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/religion/moralmaze.shtml

Ignore the first part, in which a vicious nazi thug is once again given airtime to disguise his racism as an attack against a religion...near the end, panelist Clifford Longley (Christian writer) says something interesting. Paraphrasing:

Criticising someone's religion is as wrong as criticising their race. He disagrees with panelist Steven Rose (atheist neurobiologist) that one's race is a fundamental part of one's being while religion is merely their ideas. "Race is simply to do with the colour of someone's skin. Religion is to do with the nature of their very soul."

An irreconcileable argument, obviously. It all depends on whether one believes in a soul or not. And it's wrong for non-believers to criticise the very idea.

Checkmate to Theism?

I haven't heard the show but my instinct would be to say that a statement such as "Criticising someone's religion is as wrong as criticising their race" is a load of baloney.

Racial logic has been thoroughly disproven by scientific knowledge. Someone born black, or white or Asian can't do much about their genes, and there is no real reason to either, given the overwhelming body of evidence that shows that we as humans are not much different to each other.

We can, however, do something about our belief systems.

We live in an age where people will fly passenger planes into buildings because of their religion. And we are not allowed to criticise the basic ideas behind this behaviour? That's madness! I am not saying that all religious people will do this or that non religious people are whiter than white, but still - a non-religious argument can be criticised, dissected, undermined and rendered invalid. Why should such inquiry be muted in the case of religion, given the huge impact it can have *in extremis* on the lives of each one of us?

And yet and yet...Clifford Longley says his religion is integral to his soul - and that's as integral as his skin.

I wonder if he's ever heard of converts?

Soul is not so hard to deal with. Microsoft has a soul, so has Mac OS, so has Linux . . . it's a shorthand perception of an operating philosophy, as seen from the intentional stance.

Funny, I saw Steven Rose's name on the printed list, but didn't hear his name on the programme. Michael Portillo was the other panellist.

Clifford B's point you mention didn't come across as convincing to me.

About "soul". I didn't really follow Pilgrim's statement a page back about having a soul. Could you explain what is the difference for you between emotions and a soul, Pilgrim?

Looks like Pilgrim's moved on.

Here's some fresh air: http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2006/dawkins-colbert-p1.php

From Jeremy Hardy on R4 earlier today:

"Some Humanists get very evangelical about their non-belief in god. They're like Jehovah's I-Never-Saw-Nothings."

By the way...he was very a close friend of Linda Smith, late Hon. President of The British Humanist Association. http://www.humanism.org.uk/

Linda Smith succeeded Claire Rayner. Until last week, the president of The American Humanist Association was Kurt Vonnegut. So it goes. His predecessor was Isaac Asimov. At Asimov's memorial, Vonnegut said the funniest thing it's possible to say at a Humanist memorial:
"Isaac's in heaven now."

I really don't have time to read the backlog

Is there anything I should look at to bring me up to speed?

Backlog be damned. Just pitch in and say something interesting.

Hmm.

Unfortunately, RL calls at the moment..

Will a quote suffice for now?

"Free will -- the capacity to plan open-ended scenarios and try out even improbable scenarios entirely in the mind by juggling images and symbols -- if linked with episodic memories, enables you to see yourself as an active agent doing things in the future (or past) thereby generating a full-fledged sense of self.
As a bonus, this ability would also enable you to present yourself to others as a predictable human being with certain stable attributes, an important capacity for intensely social creatures like us.
By combining behavioral studies on patients with brain lesions -- the main theme of my work -- with functional brain imaging, and viewing the results from an evolutionary perspective, we an begin to elucidate these different components of self and finally tackle the mystery of how the components interact to generate awareness and self-consciousness."

-- V.S. Ramachandran -- 'A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness'

Although it may not be immediately apparent, I think there may be certain implications relevant to the discussion at hand..

Hey - any mention of Vilayanur Ramachandran is fine by me. Apart from anything else, he has the most gorgeous speaking voice in the known world. (If not as sexy as Marielle Frostrup's)