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

I should really get around to getting copies of La Nausee and La Mouche. They've been on my 'I really should' list, ever since my headmaster used to read us passages from them (in French).

Meantime, I came across this in The Grauniad science section: http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/lastword/story/0,,1546180,00.html. It's partly about Bush/Intelligent Design, but also makes some wider points re atheism.

It was followed up in the letters page yesterday: http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/opinion/story/0,,1550739,00.html

One response in particular deserves quoting in full, being a useful ripost to the Rev's earlier comment :

"I've been trying to think of an experiment to prove that there aren't hobgoblins at the bottom of my garden. It's tricky, especially given that these hobgoblins may not be of material form. So, at the moment, I cannot prove or disprove that there are hobgoblins at the bottom of my garden. I really don't think there are any, but that's a position of faith, I suppose."

Perfect!

I enjoyed the article's points about ID, but did find it amusing when he said that athiesm was a "position of faith". That response, the one you quoted, is brilliant! I needed a chuckle this morning.

Gosh I feel so simplistic and naive, when I read these discussions, thoughts and debates written here. The material you read leave me flapping like a fish out of water - I have no idea.... and find it very hard to take it in.

Still I like to read others thoughts and opinions.

The way I think is hard to describe in that it's so simple. I am living and I will die. The end. I don't believe that there is a super power. I respect natures awesome power to create and destroy.....but don't believe as such that someone *something* is out there specifically for us, watching and judging.

Mebbe I suppose we could be in a petri dish...one never knows in that case then I guess.... That seems a lil far fetched for me, but one should not close one's mind to all conceptions (and I choose that word carefully)

I know that when I die, I will come back in other forms....my body will rot, worms will digest me, plants will eat the nutrients, animals will eat the plants and so on...I am comfortable with that.

Even if say in a biblical scenario...the earth and skies opened up...I'd still be skeptical, and I would just think wow, that's some show, where'd they get the technology to do that special XF...and cor, someone was experimenting and playing with us after all, the bastards....

Vix...I hope we're not *too* scary here! I, for one, try not to confuse intelligence with pretension.

>>...but one should not close one's mind to all conceptions

Hmm. Up to a point. This is what the great Scottish philosopher David Hume meant when he said 'Tis possible that a coal upon the fire will not burn.' In other words...until we've seen all pieces of coal upon all fires, we can't know for certain that they will *always* burn.

Of course, he was taking the piss. The religious argument is something along the lines of 'Ah, but you can't show me scientific proof that God doesn't exist!' (Gotcha there. For all you know he might, and my opinion's as good as yours...etc. etc.). Well, fair enough. If we want to keep an open mind, we have to accept that god *might* exist. Similarly fairies. Or we might be living in a petri dish. Or the earth might be supported by elephants.

The key to it all is Empircism. We have to work with the evidence in front of us and deduce from there. If we analyse worldly phenomenon, we don't get any answers for which God has to be the answer. Or fairies. etc. etc. On the other hand...from the known properties of coal, we can deduce that it will burn.

Another taunt from the religious is that atheists aren't keeping an open mind. I'll happily own up to that. Scepticism is the key to rationality. 1) Refuse to believe anything that you can't demonstrate to be true. 2) Refuse to believe even the true things. Knowledge advances by actively looking for the circumstances in which known truths don't hold up.

> If we analyse worldly phenomenon, we don't get any answers for which God has to be the answer. Or fairies. etc. etc. On the other hand...from the known properties of coal, we can deduce that it will burn.<

That's exactly where I beg to differ with religious folk who insist on the existence of god(s). Or fairies. Particularly those folk who insist on attributing metaphysical or supernatural characteristics to worldly phenomena. For example, people who claim "magical correspondences" of colors, plants, rocks, etc. Sure, mystical thinking is fun- I enjoy sci-fi and fantasy fiction, especially Dick and Wilson- but it has no basis in reality.

>Another taunt from the religious is that atheists aren't keeping an open mind. I'll happily own up to that. Scepticism is the key to rationality. 1) Refuse to believe anything that you can't demonstrate to be true. 2) Refuse to believe even the true things. Knowledge advances by actively looking for the circumstances in which known truths don't hold up.<

Bingo. Well stated.

Funny, I believe all sorts of things that I can't demonstrate to be true.

All political and ethical beliefs come into this category. And I take a largely Popperian view of science, so science also can't be demonstrated (proved) to be true.

I don't demand proof from people who wish to argue with me. Just good reasons. And there are no good reasons for belief in the supernatural.

Hmm. I guess we can 'believe' undemonstratable things for convenience - provided we are prepared to accept that we may be wrong.

Politics and ethics are good examples. We're working in multivariate worlds where it's difficult to trace the logic all the way down. We therefore have to be prepared to take on board alternate arguments and test our own propositions against them.

To take one, complex area as an example: criminal justice. There are political (and ethical) arguments for and against capital punishment and high levels of custody. It is perfectly rational to argue in favour of either of these. The question is 'Do they improve society?'

Arguments against? Well - let's start by looking at crime rates in countries with and without capital punishment and with high and low per capita prison populations.

This is just an example. What I'm arguing for is the use of evidence-based reasoning.

I was reading a completely fictional book this afternoon ("The Devil's Advocate" by Morris L West.) Not a particularly good book, but there was a cnversation between two Catholic priests, and one of them voiced his opinion about religion, which is one I share. I feel this way about religion, faith in general, prayer, and so-called spells and "magick" as well. He said "the people love religion because it lets them get down on their knees and beg for favors, instead of rolling up their sleeves and working for them".

It's just that refusal to accept personal accountability- the ideas of "original sin", demons and devils, etc- that I dislike so much about most major religions. That and the idea that lighting a few candles, burning some incense, and dancing around naked during a full moon, accomplishes more than actually *working* at something. Aside from being, IMO, delusional, it's also lazy thinking.

>Hmm. I guess we can 'believe' undemonstratable things for convenience - provided we are prepared to accept that we may be wrong.<

It seems to me that most people who do believe in undemonstratable things, flat our *refuse* to accept that they might be wrong.

Hence so many personal attacks (even here!) on non-religious thinkers by people of so-called "faith".

Thinking about it...'believe' is not the right word. How about 'Take as a working assumption.' Some problems - eg in the area of ethics - aren't east to look at empirically. But we can make certain assumptions, provided we realise that this is all they are and are prepared to revise them as more data come in.

In fairness, this is (sort of) what religion has done over the ages. There was a working assumption of a Higher Authority. But it doesn't hold up - any more than the idea that prancing around on midwinter's night will make the spring come.

I love the quote (which I must track down) 'All religions are aspiring towards atheism'.

Hi there

Just announcing my presence here, cool thread BTW

Thanks Edward for the link.

I am an athiest, although it is sometimes annoying to have to use that word as a category when I don't think that there should need to be a category. I've found that it's just easier to say athiest than to say "I don't have a religion", cos people tend to just assume that I'm really a non-practicing christian () or an agnostic. I'm also a sceptic at heart. I separate those two because I absolutely refuse to believe in a god, even if it would make my life easier, but I would *love* to believe in magic, fairies, witches, vampires, spiritual beings ie pagan type 'gods' etc, but until someone shows me the proof, I assume that they don't exist. Likewise, I'd love to believe that there are an infinite number of parallel universes (one of them has to be good!) but until I see one I have to assume that they don't exist. That may seem egocentric or stupid (to disbelieve parallel universes because I don't understand the maths) but it's the way my brain is wired. I've tried to believe that there are bigger things in the world (except gods, I refuse to believe in gods) cos that would make my life a whole lot less painful, but I just can't. I'm not sure if that means I'm smarter or dumber than people whose lives are happy cos they believe in whatever they need to to get them through the days.

OK, I'd just like to apologise for all of the above. I'm just drunk enough to know that I shouldn't post this and I'll regret it tomorrow, but too drunk to care.

And why won't these hiccups go away??!!

You know...parallel universes have given me grief in the past, when debating with religionists. Basically, they're saying 'Ah...but science is discovering stranger and stranger things all the time...how do you know that God/Earth spirits/ fairies don't come from a parallel universe?'

Well...(some) theoretical physicists are indeed proposing multiverses of various sorts to explain how sub-atomic particles can apparently disappear from one place and pop up in another. But a couple of points: Firstly, they're talking about *particles*. They haven't yet found a fairy in a particle accelerator. Secondly...it's taken some hard maths to get where we are. Are the religious suggesting that they happen to have stumbled upon the same idea by other means? And did they know it all along...these same people that got so much else wrong? Mind you...I guess in a parallel universe, Jesus wants me for a sunbeam...


On a separate topic...another excellent ID-related article in yesterday's Grauniad: http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/lastword/story/0,13228,1564377,00.html
Summary: ID-folk believe that life is too complex to have evolved. Another example of a complex system is an economy. Right-wing ID proponents also advocate free-markets: Economies will develop in appropriate ways without outside intervention.

It's a pity that, from next week, the Grauniad are abandoning their separate, weekly science section.

Thanks for the link to that article. It was really interesting to read the analogies there. I'm going to print that one off for future reference.

FYI, Morris West was a Catholic himself...

<>

Do you not notice the reverse? There are many thousands more attacks especially on here, by atheists (non-believers, if you prefer) on people of faith - as believe me, I can testify! My enforced hiatus can in fact, testify.

Indeed, it is not the intention of this forum to attack people of any faith. It *is* reasonable, though, to question, attack or mock their beliefs. If they can't separate the two...their problem.

While it would be reasonable to expect that the superstitious may wish to question atheists here, I respectfully suggest that this is not the place for the defence of a particular religion.

Or...to put it another way...I don't hang around on Christian boards.

In the entry attached to this convo, you specifically invited religious people to participate. But hey, I know when I'm not wanted! Tarrah...

I know you *want* to offend, but I am not sticking around or playing your little game - I'll leave you and PC to talk to each other.. 'Bye!

I just have an addendum, and unlike on other boards I've discovered since my enforced hiatus, it isn't possible to edit or add to posts...

<>

Superstitious. Defence of a particular religion. Get real! In a particularly bitter mood tonight, aren't we?
I wasn't, as you could if not for your unwarranted anger, have seen, defending *any* religion, just commenting on the irony of PC's self-aggrandising statement about the bullying of the poor non-believers.
There are some non-believers with whom it is possible to discuss religion peaceably and reasonably. But it would seem that few such people are to be found here on hootoo! I don't know what it is about this site - but sometimes I find it really scary - the degree of just plain spite and nastiness. Is it really disguised fear?

So Della, what sort of arguments do "reasonable" non-believers use?

I ask because I think there is rather less intetional nastiness on both sides of these arguments than it appears, but that the actual beliefs held are often offensive to the other side.

Who's being spiteful and nasty?

<>

! I am on another board (in another tab) reading monetarist sh1te and it made me somewhat jaundiced, so that I reacted with far more anger than was really warranted...
But I am still a bit cross that Edward having specifically *invited* input from believers (in the entry this convo attaches to) then reacts with such meanness, when a believer *does* respond.


I should be more tolerant of Edward's issues.

Well...actually I was perfectly calm - not feeling angry or bitter.

Still...it did the trick. Della's contributions to religious debate have a record of deteriorating into stupidity. While intelligent contributions are welcome...I would be more than happy for her to pursue her inerests elsewhere. But she'll be back. . She likes to lurk.