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

Also...

Transcript of an R4 programme about Humanism: A10475147. Discussion welcomed (encouraged!). My own thoughts are that most contributers got hold of the wrong end of the stick and even the proponents didn't present it in a good light.

As I gather (not having studied religion, but currently reading about the Reformation) Calvinism is based largely on predestination: we are all damned from the word go, except for the few that God has chosen (in advance) to make up His elect. Good deeds cut no ice (particularly giving endowments to the Catholic Church).

CUTTED AND PASTEDED FROM RECUMBENTMAN:

Post 1:

A good deed Edward!

A fascinating piece of editing by Malik; getting people to talk not in each other's presence gives endless possibilities for misrepresenting their reactions to one another!

However, 'humanism' is probably as indefinable as 'religion'. Everybody knows what those words mean, and everybody knows different.

I am wary of statements like "the world has improved". Certainly studies of distant pre-urbanised groups show worse murder figures than Chicago or LA or any city; but I share Wittgenstein's caution -- the world is too big a thing to speak about sensibly in generalisations. (If that egregious generalisation makes sense to you; I hope it may.)

Post 2:

A quote from a student during Beckett's year as a lecturer in TCD (1930-31):

". . . he said you can never quantify how a human being will react. You can put a bunch of tongs in the fire and they will all turn red. Ten human beings faced with a situation will react in different and unexpected ways. As he said 'we do not know what a human being is made of.' . . . "

God he could put his finger on it, couldn't he?

My own thoughts re the Humanism prog:

Yes, I agree that Humanism can be all things to all humans. Hattersley (god, how I loathe that man!) seems to be applying an outmoded definition derived originally from Methodist socialism (although his father was an RC priest, wasn't he?) based on the glorious perfectability of humankind. I'm more cynical/pessimistic. We can be just as savage and random as the other beasts. Unlike them, we know this and can try to be kind.

Blacklock: I respect her work in neuroscience - but I hardly ever agree when she speaks outwith her specialism. Yes, she's right - we are fundamentally no different than the other animals. And this gives credence to the 'speciesist' drivel from the likes of Ryder. The fundamental difference between humans and animals is that we share families and societies with one and not the other. Our life/happiness depends on constructing a human morality. But we can't go stopping cheetahs from eating zebras. (Opening up of discussion into the area of 'animal rights' invited...).

Ramadan: He's generally regarded as one of the more west-friendly muslim thinkers. On many issues, he's reasonably pragmatic, in a 'sure, you never said the dog was a Catholic' way. (joke to which this is a punchline available on request). But he's completely got hold of the wrong end of the stick here. Yes, I do indeed maintain that there is no authority above humans. That's fundamental (sic). But that doesn't mean that I *myself* am the ultimate authority. If I were endangering the life or happiness of those around me, I'd expect - encourage! - them do do something about it. And vice versa. In fact it's *religion* that gives full authority to the individual, because nobody can refute whatever potty version of it 'feels right' to any given god-botherer.

So...what's Humanism? People are all we've got. 'Godamm it, you've got to be kind!' (A3724823). I think I'm leaning towards being a Bright.

Actually, though...we should let the fully paid-up Humanists do the talking: http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentChapterView.asp?chapter=309 (RIP, Linda Smith).

>his father was an RC priest, wasn't he?

Cor! Scandal!

And yet there are two fairly common Irish surnames, MacEntaggart and MacEnespie, which mean respectively "son of the priest" and "son of the bishop".

One of my favourite bits from Father Ted was when Fr. Dougal greeted his Bishop:
'Ah, Bishop Brennan! How's your son?'


Ah! The scandal deepens...http://www.highbeam.com/ref/doc0.asp?DOCID=1G1:76139800&num=6&ctrlInfo=Round19%3AMode19a%3AREFSR%3AResult

Just read all the backlog and have nothing to say at this time. I'm looking forward to reading more though.

Let's hear the dog joke!

Dog joke! Dog joke!

But listen guys, it's really not a problem. Religion is all a matter of how you identify yourself.

It is not enough to say "I am an autonomous individual" because it would be impossible to be an autonomous individual if you were the only boy or girl in the world: think about it.

We depend on one another; and by the deity we mean the universal mind to which we subscribe in the act of communicating. At times our subscription can waver or go into arrears, but we really can't converse at all without the assumption that we are capable of agreeing on essential basics. No man is an island.

Now naming this universal mind, and claiming superior rights of access, is purely and simply politics, so let's not confuse that with religion.

Och...it's an old one.

An old lady's dog dies. She goes to the priest and asks him to arrange a funeral.
'I can't do that,' says Fr O'Reilly, 'You know full well that dogs don't have immortal souls. We can't go burying them in consecrated ground.'
'But,' says the old lady, 'I'd be prepared to make a substantial donation...'
'Ah now,' says Fr O'Reilly 'You never told me the dog was a Catholic!'

An illustration of hypocrisy? Or of the pragmatic casuistry of a flexible religion?

As usual, Recumbentman throws a curve ball - keeping us awake and making us glad he's here.

I see where you're coming from. It's all part of the perennial shift from the white-bearded God to the vague, interdependence-of-everything kind of godhead thingummygig. I still have a couple of problems with calling this ideas 'god'.

1) It allies one with a spectrum of beliefs stretching back to the vengeful bush burner. It's not the same 'god' that's being talked about - but by talking about it as though it is, it gives a certain degree of credence to all the other gods. We allow that they are 'partly right.'

2) It's an entirely useless abstraction. We can talk about interdependencies. We can recognise that I depend on you. We can see that we all depend on our planet's ecosystem. We can realise that we are all composed of the dust of dead stars...etc. etc. etc. But these are discrete interdendencies. It's entirely fruitless to think about them as all part of a vast, universal one-ness. Like trying to explain a Rembrant in terms of the actions of individual elecrons within our neurochemistry.

So...I guess where I'm coming from is that I'm not arguing against religion as a set of political groupings.

You are or you're not?

By the way, the best historical statement of "empirical theology" I know of is Berkeley's A3472986

I left out a 'just'. I'n not *just* arguing against religion as a political grouping.

I knew you were going to mention Bishop B, of course. I'm not convinced it's a useful way of looking at things, though. What practical connectivity is there between your intelligence and that of a being on a planet orbiting Arcturus?

Pardon?

Erm...I've lost my way now. You're the Berkeley expert, so you'll have to lend a hand here.

Elsewhere you've explained the 'god as the sum total of all the matter and intelligence in the universe' business. a) I think that's redefining god b) I'm not sure whether the idea goes anywhere. But perhaps you can put me right.

Also...'empirical theology.' Explain?

Meanwhile...

An interesting interview with Lewis Wolpert in today's Grauniad: http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/books/story/0,,1751371,00.html

He says he's "a reductionist, materialist atheist" I thing the 'reductionist' is useful. The universe not as a big god-like whole, but as the sum of lotsandlotsandlots of parts.

That's a great article, and I agree with what Wolpert says .

I came to a similar suspicion a few years ago, that the urge to search for a Saviour is a genetically useful social attribute, one likely to be selected for. One gains most (genetic payoff, i.e well-placed offspring) by being the leader of the pack; but one gains almost as much by being an early and close supporter of the coming leader. For females in a male-dominated social group, one gains by being the wife, or a wife, of such a leader. Therefore we are likely to have a well-honed instinct, and a strong urge with deep psychological payoffs.

Empirical theology is my term (coined yesterday) for what Berkeley achieved: it is not used in my Berkeley entry but the pathway is explained there.

And, Edward, I didn't use the word god, you did; but my attitude is: don't just oppose the concept, that would be an attempt to censor language. Use it, with as much understanding as you can, and acceept the fact that religion is not likely to go away.

Sorry to butt in - I have found this blog most fascinating!

Something that intrigues me greatly at the moment is that a huge amount of work is going on in universities all over the world in the discipline of understanding complexity. This work is carefully, but quite powerfully, deconstructing the idea of an over-arching god.

When a religious person is asked the question "why do you believe in a god?", a common answer is "look at the sunsets, the beauty in a flower, the pattern of a snowflake, the order of the galaxies, the laughing of a child" - in a sense the huge amount of quite wonderful order going on all around the place, as if, somehow it was all pre-ordained and designed by a benevolent creator.

But that's not what the academics are finding - they are finding that the order is simply the net effect of a multitude of smaller, simpler interactions that by-and-large behave according to their own logic. Because of the power of computers we can model these interactions, leading to surprising, often unpredictable , but still quite rational and fully mathematical results.

While the storm over evolution rages, here is a quieter and far more powerful revolution that is taking place in labs and libraries across the planet.

Just a thought.

>>"look at the sunsets, the beauty in a flower, the pattern of a snowflake, the order of the galaxies, the laughing of a child" - in a sense the huge amount of quite wonderful order going on all around the place, as if, somehow it was all pre-ordained and designed by a benevolent creator.

DNA hisself said something along the lines of how a hyper-intelligent puddle might deduce the existence of god by the way the hollow in which it was contained was exactly the right shape for it.

Fell free to but in, Woodpigeon. The more the etc.


Another thought: A major part of religion appears to be about 'understanding' the universe. Why do we imagine we are any more capable of doing so than, say, a bonobo, a dog, a fish or a slime mould? (Are slime moulds plural?). Bits of it, yes...but even the greatest expert in cosmology is unlikely also to be expert in genetics.

Recumbentman: You've missed your cue to educate us in Berkeley. I'm not in a position to disagree intelligently yet. Tell us why it's good stuff.

Sorry to disappoint you Ed, but all I can say is, read the Entry

I find Conway's Game of Life a terrifically good illustration of our situation. You know the setup (those who don't google it): there is a space consisting of (filled with) cells that can either be occupied (1) or vacant(2). You start a world by filling some cells. The page is repeatedly refreshed according to a few simple rules, which can be summarised by saying that a cell dies (is emptied) if it is either stranded (isolated) or choked (overcrowded). If it is in a certain situation (near enough to another occupied cell but not overcrowded) it will repoduce (fill a neighbouring cell).

Now these rules produce patterns. Things appear to fly across the page, or to eat up anything that flies into them. Some starting patterns remain stable, others lay down tracks, others burst into firework displays before burning out.

Do these fliers and eaters (etc.) exist? No, you might say, they are illusions brought on by the way the working-out of the rules appears to our pattern-seeking brains. The rules have no place for such things, only for individual cells and their immediate neighbours.

And yet they are plainly there to see.