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

God must be accepted as a fact? Hmmmm. Still can't quite agree with you there, Uncle Nick, but I appreciate your arguement. I think it's more a question of language now than anything else though. I see you're on the same wavelength as me in the main - that God exists in peoples minds only, but that existing in peoples minds does therefore have an impact on the world. That I can agree with. But to say 'He' is therefore fact? Well, I would be more inclined to say that 'He' is more a rather potent figment of human interpretation of reality, while the only fact is that people's beliefs shape the world around them. Still, two sides of the same coin so shall we leave it there?

EggsER, why do you assume that all atheists are reckless daredevils? I do not believe in any gods simply because I cannot reconcile myself to their existance. The way I see it, everything just is and there is no need for a further explaination. However, this does not mean that I lack ethics or morals. I have these in abundance. Every day I learn a little more and develope as a person. I live a rather 'good' life, thank you. I am an atheist but I am not particularly reckless. I seek to live my life without hurting those around me or myself and I help where I can and seek betterment. I live by my own philosophy.

Marcus Aurelius

'...BUT the environment created in Europe by the Church is what ALLOWED the SS to get away with it. Why didn't Pope Pius XII condemn it, despite having known about the persecution of the Jews (if not the actual ins and outs of the death camps)? Because he, and the Christian establishment were anti-semitic.'

CATHOLIC! And maybe a few other churches, but not every one. I OBJECT intensely to the implication that all Christians are Catholics.

Thanks to Hoovooloo, who (in my book) does not count as a hypocrite. I see what you meant about Psychology - in its early stages, it could never have counted as a science. However, it definately deserves to be called a science, albeit an embrionic one. It is often interpreted according to some pretty hazy preconceptions and with reference to a largely negative public perception. However, it is now a disciple that is more vehemently self-critical and at least as rigorous as physics or chemistry, I assure you. At least, in the books of all but the Freudians and the Humanists - and especially the Jungian (sp?), who often forward some pretty unjustified concepts. They are, of course, the irritating radical/semi-mystical element that often gives other disciplines a bad name, and do little but fuel public distrust when their plans fall through. You would do best to view them critically. I'm sure physics has its own proponents which would correspond to them well, e.g. steady state. Jung's methods are almost like alchemy in their deriviation. However, due respect must be given to them as a legitimate (though unscientific) alternative philosophy.

As can be seen in the first paragraph, I was not only blaming you for poor semantics. But you may recall that you mentioned the substitution of prayer for proper treatment. Firstly, treatment was in many cases withheld or otherwise difficult to obtain. Secondly, not everyone (that includes Christians) agreed that it would solve the problem.

Certain other, hasty persons would be well advised to attend to your comment - 'Eugenics: Science or politics?' I extract a quote from A569586, by Bright Blue Shorts (lookit the funny name!).

"In the late 19th century, Galton, proposed... eugenics. He believed that intelligence was inherited and that poor families with their large numbers of children were slowly lowering the average level of intelligence (Gould, 1981). In particular he believed that there were differences between the races, with whites being superior to blacks, Jews, eastern Europeans, the Latin and Asians."

Other famous historical figures before the rise of the Nazis, more often than not scientists or proponents of science, have discussed the uses of eugenics - Aldous Huxley is a well known example. I hope, therefore, that you will forgive me for saying that eugenics is not only science, but extremely good science, being totally objective - i.e. morally unconcerned. (Not the only aspect of objectivity, I know...)

And now, we come to the question: is eugenics political or scientific? I hope very much that I can answer this more fully in that entry I am trying to write. Using the definitions I have laid out there, I would argue that it is both science and politics. In fact, both of these uses of the word are distinct and separate. What I was doing was to intentionally confuse the issue to demonstrate the use of the same poor logic when applied to science.

Eugenics is, in fact, the very field which gave rise to selective breeding. However, the Nazis used it as a political tool. The difference between science and politics is in the application: science (like religion) has a latent potential for application to nearly any aspect of our existance, whereas politics is designed for application to the existing form of government. Thus, Eugenics was a discipline that was employed by the Nazis in a political or military capacity. The difference betweem religion and science, as far as I can see, is that all religions (regardless of their position on other issues) have guidelines (accepted on faith) concerning moral behaviour, which science does and cannot. Religion was being exploited as a political tool every bit as much as science was, and it cannot be held responsible any more than the latter. The Crusades, I can see (and that's CATHOLIC, not religious or even Christian). The atom bomb, I can see. Those were intentional applications of religion or science with the intent of harming people and property. However, even these are incidents in which a restricted, single aspect/faction of workers in either field are responsible, not the community as a whole - I am no more responsible for the Crusades, nor you for the atom bomb, than we are for the deaths of Holly and Jessica. They are isolated incidents in a larger sceme of things.

'How many wars have used religion as a justification' or something similar (the computer is slow and forgetful, I apologise)

Look at the reference I give in my article for a bit on this. You actually say it a bit better than most people would, but still...

God: I can know he exists and refuse to accept otherwise. You (i.e. anyone who criticises me) are the ones who say anything different. Atheism is a religious classification. Agnosticism (there might or might not be a God) is a scientific conclusion. Belief in a God (or, indeed, gods) is once again a statement of religious belief. If you believe there is no God, then there is no God at that moment in time /as far as you are concerned/. At this moment in time, you are wrong /as far as I am concerned/. Same goes for the tooth-fairy. Can you honestly say otherwise? Yes, you can - but I can say that you are wrong and we get an infinite chain of logic. It all makes perfect sense. Agree with me and I will purr...

Schizophrenia /= fractured personality. Direct translation: fractured mind. Mind /= personality. QED. A bit more, it you are interested: this is all an impression perpetuated by Stephenson's /Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde/. Schezophrenia is viewed as a 'weak' form of split personality. It is not. It is defined in terms of the following: delusions (generally, thought transferrance/reception/removal), hallucinations (generally auditory, occasionally visual/somatic/anything else, emotional disinterest (there is another name, but the memory eludes me), technical apathy (literally, lacking the will to act determinedly), such behaviours as long silences or disjointed conversation (among others) and a history of the above conditions for a period of no less than 6 months. It must also display none of the symptoms of a mood disorder etc. (this precipitates entry into another category, sometimes (for example, in cases where both disorders seem to fit) schizoaffective disorder. It is not generally diagnosed unless the patient falls into the age range 20-40, corresponding to the normal period in which symptoms become apparent. These are just a few of the diagnostic criteria, but from this it should become apparent that it is not, as is commonly believed, to do with split personality, or even a fractured mind to any particular extent, as the name (actually somewhat of a misnomer) suggests. But none of you are expected to know that, so consider yourselves educated. Read a book, if necessary - I had to!

My point was that the aetiology of the fourth path was different. Not the treatment. Though, often, this may consist a little more than love and compassion - almost no schizophrenics have been restored to proper health for a significant period of time without the use of neuroleptic drugs, which I refuse to take - the side effects are often massively destructive. New drugs do cut down on the side effects, but are not conclusively researched in many cases. Anyway, there is generally something to be said for medication in cases of extreme neurological disorder.

Slavery - I will look out those references. I apologise if I prematurely jumped into a debate I was not adequately prepared for, but will try and get back once I consider myself kitted-out.

And the Hell thing: there are tons of answers to what will happen to them, ranging from straight-to-purgatory to a free passport to heaven, with did-you-listen-to-your-conscience-and-take-the-easy-way-out and limbo in between. (In the latter case, literally in between.) It all depends on what you believe. Go look, if you're that bothered. Or ask someone what they think.

That's all. What else? I'll do it later. (Note: see A431911.)

- Jordan

Hiya Jordan...

"Thanks to Hoovooloo, who (in my book) does not count as a hypocrite."

Thanks, I think

"I see what you meant about Psychology"

Good.

"I'm sure physics has its own proponents which would correspond to them well, e.g. steady state."

The difference being it's much harder to explain a maverick new idea in physics to the editor of a newspaper, so they get much less coverage -which is good for physics, but bad for psychology, which is easier to sum up in media-friendly soundbites. Not a criticism of quack psychologists, or quack physicists, just newspaper editors...

"...you mentioned the substitution of prayer for proper treatment. Firstly, treatment was in many cases withheld or otherwise difficult to obtain. Secondly, not everyone (that includes Christians) agreed that it would solve the problem."

My point was that prayer WAS tried as a solution, for hundreds of years, and failed, and continues to fail, compared to the massive and reliable success of scientific solutions. From a purely practical point of view, religion, and prayer in particular, don't *work* - or rather, in the rare cases when they do work it's hard to be sure that it's the prayer that's making the difference.

"And now, we come to the question: is eugenics political or scientific? I hope very much that I can answer this more fully in that entry I am trying to write."

Looking forward to reading it.

"...Schezophrenia is viewed as a 'weak' form of split personality. It is not. ... it should become apparent that it is not, as is commonly believed, to do with split personality...none of you are expected to know that, ... Read a book, if necessary - I had to!"

Trust me, Jordan, when I tell you I'm very well acquainted with the differences between schizophrenia and dissociative identity disorder, previously called multiple personality disorder. And I didn't read a book about it.

"...almost no schizophrenics have been restored to proper health for a significant period of time without the use of neuroleptic drugs, which I refuse to take"

Sorry to hear this. Not that you refuse to take them, but that someone feels you need to.

"Slavery - I will look out those references. I apologise if I prematurely jumped into a debate I was not adequately prepared for, but will try and get back once I consider myself kitted-out."

Not a problem.

"...ask someone what they think."

Consistently doing that with everyone who'll tell me.

H.

I'm lost on so many paths but.....

Well summed up Jordan and Hoovooloo.

Marcus

Thanks...
And top marks for knowing the proper term was DID - I used the older term because most people have heard of that one.

- Jordan

My husband is an atheist too, and while he admits that there may be some higher power he insists that he prefers Science or Mathematics. I say fine but it is reckless to assume our limited intellegence is capable of making such a choice. How often over the centuries have science and mathematics discovered new truths which completely change the view of past "Truths". I am not unfriendly to atheists, I do not think they are less moral. Sometimes I tire of non believers assuming that all Believers are spitefull and judgemental. Unfortunately judgement is not limited to those who believe in a higher power. My remark was meant to be teasing not overly critical. Sorry if it sounded that way.

Marcus - Use 'It' instead of 'He' and we can call it a wrap

Agree that it's all about language though, there are as many different 'perceptions' of 'God' as there are individuals, and even then that perception is dynamic as opposed to static. Thats really why I think it is important that we don't focus on any one particular 'aspect' of the 'God' thing cos it could as easily be a bearded old fella on a cloud as it could nubile young woman in a forest glade. Unless each contributor first outlined which particular aspect they didn't think was a fact, before arguing that is fiction then there is no logical way to actually debate the subject. Not that it really matters because it's the little swirls and of shoots of conversation that are more interesting. The bits at the edge of chaos where ideas collide and change and grow and have the potential to generate systemic change.

As far as the Human social system is concerned wide scale changes do not occur unless or until a particular 'belief' is sufficiently prevelent in a large enough proportion of the 'individual perceptions' within that system.

Thus, in order to 'legitamately' sieze power Hitler had to make the German people believe that they were under threat from terrorists. To enable him to invade Poland he had to make the German people believe that they had been attacked by Poland.

But most of all he relied on propaganda. The German people did not go to war because of religion or their belief in God, they were told huge great porkies by a compliant media.

Thus - In the beginning there was the Word.

On March 19, 1934, Prescott Bush (Grandfather of Dubya) then director of the German Steel Trust's Union Banking Corporation, initiated an alert to Averell Harriman about a problem which had developed in the Flick partnership.
Bus sent Harriman a clipping from the New York Times of that day, which reported that the Polish Government was fighting back against American and German stockholders who controlled Polands largest industrial unit, the Upper Silesian Coal and Steel Company.

I,m off to work now. Here's some WORDS

http://www.unclenicks.net/canvas/Fourth_Reich/fourth_reich.html

Basically, any version of God(s), Godess(es) etc. that postulates the existence of an "immaterial" entity is beyond the pale. This is a form of words that means NOTHING. Anybody who says otherwise had better have a definition of the difference between material and immaterial that does some real philosophical WORK.

Noggin

absolutly, exactly what i was gonna say. can i ask the christians among us, why would satan punish his worshipers with fire and brimstone? or , not necesarily his worshipers, rather those who dont abide by gods law. surely some kind of reward, something like heaven is more likely.

In the interests of clarity, I am now in full radical Christian subset modality. (Work it out!)

Satan doesn't punish them. God does; and, while they are alive, they are probably being punished by their own actions and their conscience - as Marcus says, they deserve anything they get. He /does/ say that they will be rewarded, or give the illusion of potential reward. And as for fire and brimstone - I am not a fundamentalist, so I can say that those are just metaphors.

Immaterial/material debate: why not read St. Thomas Aquinas on that? He explains it rather well, from a Catholic point of view (and beautifully - such eloquence seems to have got lost over the years). Or there's one of the more unusual Strong AI (advocates of the theory that computers are already experiencing what we call conscious thought), which says that an algorithm can be said to have an existance in and of itself, separate from the machine - doesn't this count as an immaterial component of reality? Personally, I think this is all a bit confused, and I believe that God is made of the same stuff as us - just that he is a bit better equipped to handle it. Also, I would say that the soul is material, but that it acts in a way that we are not yet able to understand. Those in the know about quantum physics (Hoovooloo, where are you?) may have heard of one particularily exotic theory, claiming that only a /conscious/ observer can collapse the wave-function of a particle. Weird, huh? Perhaps someone out there can tell me (a) if this is a respected theory, or just a radical offshoot; and (b) why, precisely, this is? I mean, what about hidden variable theories? I gather that those are also gaining popularity. But I am no expert on any of the above, so I leave them open to you to think about. Perhaps as a vacation exercise.

Almost all the above is saturated with my own biased opinion. Feel free to attack it if, like Greg (and maybe some others), you enjoy plundering belief systems in your spare time.

- Jordan

"Those in the know about quantum physics (Hoovooloo, where are you?)"

Right here. Flattered, and ignorant, I'm afraid. I know the theory you mean, but I can't comment on its acceptability or otherwise. I'll have a look into it though... from what I remember, consciousness is not a prerequisite for a collapsed wave function. In any case - define consciousness?

H.

And therein lies the snag. I hope for some sort of deeply satisfying (not to mention sidesplitting) definition of the form 'Consciousness is what collapses the wavefunction.'

- Jordan

Ah. I see. Hmm. That's, unfortunately, a circular argument. In fact, it could lead you to saying that someone (a god?) would have had to have been around at the time of the big bang in order to collapse all the wave functions. Whereas it's perfectly valid to say that your observation of the screen right now is not only collapsing the wave functions of every particle within your field of vision, but also every other particle in the universe's past which brought you to that point, right back to the first ones.

All of which is just so much quantum mechanical w**k. And I don't mean work. The trouble with this is that quantum mechanics, at an everyday level, is so weird that when you point out its consequences to people they just go "well, that's just stupid. It can't be like that, it doesn't make any sense." And the physicists just shrug and go "please yourselves. It IS like that, and yes, it makes no sense. But we've measured it very accurately, lots of times, and we KNOW it's like that. If you don't like it, stick to apples and oranges. They make sense."

H.

I love circular logic! It's so funny. I would pee myself if I heard a physicist saying that.

And yes, I have to admit that I had pondered that exact same possibility, which would have been immensly gratifying. Or 'if there needed to be someone conscious around to collapse it, then the universe ought to have evolved life as soon as it could to do just that.' Illogical, but perversely enjoyable.

Quantum physics might be mixed up, according to the proponents (Luddites? I know not) of the aforementioned hidden variable theory. And I wouldn't be so sure about apples and oranges. Have you ever been to a greengrocer's?

- Jordan

Re Post 211(mainly)

I haven't read Aquinas on materialism/immaterialism I'm afraid, though no doubt he's eloquent. As I said above it's all a question of definitions, so here are mine, to be accepted or rejected as people see fit (but give reasons for any alternatives, please).

To exist is to have an effect on other existing things, and ultimately (potentially) to have an effect on conscious beings. (Assuming consciousness to be the ultimate guarentee of the existence of something.) To talk of something existing without having such effects is meaningless, as one could not in that case DISTINGUISH between things that do exist and things that don't.

To be a material object is to be the cause (potentially) of effects on other things, including conscious beings.

Corollary:- to exist is to be a material object (and vice versa).

To forestall an obvious rebuttal: consciousness is not a guarentor of the existence of some THING called a consciousness, but only of something.

There is thus no logical space for meaningful talk of immaterial objects.


Platonic idealism for AI . Unless instantiated in a computer/programmer's brain/etc an algorithm has no power to affect anything. In what sense then, would its existence be DISTINGUISHED from its nonexistence?

Quantum mechanics: - the collapse of the wave function.
Part of the original "Copenhagen Interpretation" of QM. The process whereby quantum indeterminacies (expressed mathematically as a wave function of probabilities) are "collapsed" to a specific state by an observation (necessarily involving a consciousness at some point in order to QUALIFY as an observation). Quantum indeterminacy seems to be a hangover from its contemporary philosophy, Logical Positivism.
The central claim would be that since the position/momentum of a particle is not determinable it must be indeterminate. This is not necessarily so.

Even so, QM is still .

Noggin

re. post 210; I read it as, why would Satan punish those who don't go along with God (and therefore serve his own purpose) by chucking them into the flames? since they've done him a service, he's more likely to reward them. Or is he just ungrateful?

What do you mean (next post) by saying those who don't obey God's laws are troubled by conscience? should I be a-trembling in my boots with guilt because I don't follow one person's interpretation over another? (soooo much contradiction!) I posted to someone else, who implied that God *is* the conscience, I am often troubled by that when I do things against my own personal moral code. I am NEVER bothered by the fact I am not one of his followers.
If that statement was true, we would instinctively know which peripheral details were Right and Wrong. (not just the things which we ourselves have deemed to be acceptable, or not.)

If obedience to God is the criterion of good, then the claim God is good is an empty tautology. (God is good because he is obedient to himself).

Noggin

Noggin -Hmmm....there cannot therefore exist something that isn't constructed of anything. Even something as intangable as an 'idea' exists in a complexed pattern of brain chemicals and electro magnetic charges.

So if you think of 'God' then that particular aspect of 'Godness' can be said to exist at that particular point in time and space.(the space being the neurons/synapsis etc wherein the thought is held)

You think 'It' therefore 'It' is. that rings a bell

And if reality is only what each individual perceives it to be, and that perception is based on the information/knowledge/experience that that particular individual has been and is subject to. Then if you can control the Information that individuals receive, you can construct for them 'Reality'

In the same way as "we are what we eat". We can only "Perceive what we receive".

Religions - Communism, Capitalism, Catholisism. What do they have in common?

Small groups of males controlling the flow of information/knowledge to the 'masses'.

Concentration of 'Power' at the center/top, whilst fooling the people that they actually have a role to play other than be productive/taxable units.

Material wealth (usually a whacking big house and a nice motor)for those who serve to ensure the continuance of the 'system' and the promise of 'rewards' at some indeterminate point, for the 'masses' (lottery-Peters pence- ?)

Drifting a bit here...

We stand at a point in Human Development where we can alter the genetic fabric of the living system which supports and sustains us. The power to do that is concentrated in the hands of a few individuals.

Similarly, the vast majority of Information that the vast majority of individuals base their 'Reality' on, is owned and controlled by a small number of individuals.

We have a planet that can easily sustain many times the current human population, the science and technology to do it has been available since at least 1925.

Yet because of the financial cost and the loss of power that a few individuals will suffer once we break our dependance on Hydro-Carbons, the World is kept in an almost perpetual state of turmoil as the 'Oil Dealers' fight over control of an ever dwindling resource.

In order to mobilise the masses (or at least obtain their support) it is essential that the population 'percieves' the correct 'Reality'

With the space that 'God' used to inhabit being taken over by 'Chaos' and the 'Approved' version of 'Reality' holding less and less sway over decreasing numbers of the masses.

Is it not about time we re-adjusted the 'system' to concur with the 'collective reality' as opposed to the 'selective reality' that has been imposed on us for the last few thousand years.

We have the technology to communicate almost mind to mind via the medium of the internet,in real time, across the globe.

Is it not about time we looked for a New Reality?

http://www.unclenicks.net/TCHI/

But the 'IT' that exists is not then God, but only the thought of God, the existence of which is not the issue here.

The social construction of reality is not in doubt either, though its limits and the extent to which the few can control the many are open to debate. Language is the mediator here, which is why we run up against linguistic issues a lot in threads like this.
Breaking the information monopoly of the few is a big job, though...

Noggin