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

ah, I see what you mean, no need to 'big deal' it to point out my error

Apologies; the 'big deal' was aimed at the corporations, not you.

no probs

It was that arch tosser St Muggeridge in the python interview with the bish. I likes Cleese's 'I'm merely suggesting that we might have made some progress.'

I've not watched this link, but I spotted Mugg about 4mins in:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2006-51,GGLG:en&resnum=0&q=life+of+brian+muggeridge&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv

Yes! Some telling moments there.

It was Mugg who started the Auld Ma Theresa bandwagon rolling with a documentary. They were filming in her 'hospital' (which wasn't worthy of the word, being a place where the sick could 'give their suffering to god'. The camera ment thought it was too dark, but Mugg really wanted the shot, so thay decided to try with a new kind of Kodak stock that they hadn't used before. When the film was shown in the editing suite, it worked better than expected,
'It's a miracle, declared Mugg, 'This is the first time that the divine light has been captured on film!'. He wrote it up in his newspaper column and it was picked up by the agencies. The miracle was part of the evidence for her beatification, That and the cure of a woman from uterine cancer by a Ma Theresa medal held to her belly. She didn't have uterine cancer, her doctors said. She was being treated with antibiotics for tuberculosis.

"For eighteen years, not one single articulate syllable has passed my lips!"

"A miracle! A miracle!"

To Christie Evangies, 'Speaking In Tongues'is another miracle.

They burble away, but nobody can understand them except one another.

And it gets even worse when the Speaking In Tongues begins.

Oo! Oo! Oo!

It's all true. I was raised Pentacostal.

I vaguely recognized the name but didn't realize till Edward mentioned it that the Mugg guy was the Ma Teresa one. I'm no fan of hers (though we have a couple of them here, don't we, Ed? Della and that Opus Dei fellow?).

And Lo, This Thread Shall Arise....


We would like to discuss "why religious morality is untenable irrespective of the patent falsity of religion"

I can think of a couple of reasons:

1) promotes the habit of not thinking for oneself and, more importantly
2) encourages lethal tribalism

My objection is that it's just hopelessly ambiguous. Anyone can read the teachings of Christianity - or whatever - and interpret it any way they like.

I'm no laywer, but I guess if you amassed all the legal statutes in, say, the UK, it would be a bit bigger than 10 sentences. A lot bigger than bible itself in fact. That indicates how complex human morality really is.

My point about it is that in holding that there are Absolute Truths, that morality is divinely ordained, it allows moral judgements to be aserted without justification.

Now, that in itself is OK - Atheist morality ultimately rests on nothing more than 'Well, it seems right to me'. But at least then it can be recognised that differences of opinion are something we have to negotiate between one another. Call it Dialectic, if you will. My own invented phrase is 'the democratic conversation'. Following negotion we can either arrive at a consensus, agree to differ...or if push comes to shove, fight.

It's a messy, error-prone process - but religion doesn't even have that. The only response they have to, say, 'God hates fags' is 'I don't think he does'. But because both sides claim their position as divinely immutable - where's the negotiation?

Well, of course, religious people *do* negotiate. Religious morality changes over time. It's led by secular negotiation.

Just for the sake of the debate I pop back in to be the other side's advocate

1 Don't fight straw men; you always win but you don't win much. Being religious does not entail being black-and-white, any more than being black or white is necessarily a 100% thing. Religion has room for doubt, uncertainty, and debate.

2 "Reason is cold, faith is passionate".

3 We spend a lot of effort living beyond the present moment. When driving a car our attention is sharply focussed one to ten seconds in the future. Our humanity depends hugely on our capacity to project beyond ourselves.

4 Granted, Muggeridge was a big eejit.

Welcome back. Let's hope it's not so temporary.

I'm not sure I'm trying to 'win'. I'm trying to understand where the faithful are coming from...and what I can do to stop them.

"Reason is cold".

I dispute that. Reason should not be misunderstood as 'Spock-like'.

Reason includes understanding what you're really arguing and what are the consequences. On something like - to take the usual, over-convenient cause celebre of sexuality - Reason can lead to passion in defence of one's fellow humans' dignity and wellbeing. At the heart of the argument is the emotion of senses of fairness and fellow-feeling

*dusts off a chair*

I attended a debate between a local philosophy professor and Muggeridge, in my first year at university. Very disappointing at the time, but completely understandable in retrospect.

Yes, the man was a big eejit.

Theists typically are all about 'winning', because they usually have a vested interest in reinforcing their dearly held beliefs. That is why theists will perform such intricate verbal/logical gymnastics in order to 'win' their 'argument'

Those who prefer the clear truth are not unemotional Vulcans, but are as passionate about reason as the faithful are about belief.

~~~~

Nice to see this little refuge of rationality get a bit of use.

Sadly, RL calls at the moment, but I'll be back!

Ho hum. Can't help agreeing with both of you. The greatest disincitement to calling oneself a believer is the company it puts one in.

But I distrust the question "do you believe in God?" -- since relevant facts are unforthcoming, on which one might base a reasonable answer, the question is instead answered by reference to the will. It becomes a question of taking sides. I find it impossible to say what I believe, on a number of issues, and I don't think I'm alone in this. I really have to work hard to find out.

Berkeley was early to spot this will/reason dichotomy. "What men say is directed more to the will than to the understanding", or words to that effect. A3472986

And sadly perhaps, at least it is kind of you to suggest so, Ed, this is indeed a fleeting visit.

>>But I distrust the question "do you believe in God?"<<

My response: 'Which one? Thor?'

I distrust it also, on the grounds that it's hard to know what people mean. The bizarre Christian god? Some kind of vague Fimbly Feeling? In fact...I think the question is fundamentally meaningless. Even believers seem umable to tell me what this god thing is. At best it's something that explains all sorts of things (creation; morality; the meaning of life; what happens when we die) that don't require divine explanations.