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

<>
This I also agree with. Why should we be classified as being part of a certain religion?>>

Well, no, it's not always *necessary*, but even "people who are uncertain which, if any, religion (or politic, philosophy, or whatever) is closest to the truth" form a rough and ready category.

Bouncy is perfectly correct to say that even a word like 'apple' designates a category or generalisation, one that distinguishes it from pears, cherries, etc; it also has sub categories of various sorts (red/green, ripe/unripe, Granny Smith/Cox's), and is a member of higher order categories (fruit, normally edible things etc). These things don't usually strike us as objectionable ("things" are unlikely to be offended), and seem in some way to "cut nature at the joints" (a potentially interesting digression which I will pass over here).

But it seems we feel that categorising people is different. And to the extent that a miscategorisation, or an unjustified cross categorisation (particularly the incorrect association of one type of category {mean, inferior, dishonest, etc} with another sort {eg nationality or sexual orientation} can cause genuine injustice and suffering, it is different.

But how could you understand another person who you meet for the first time if you could not use *any* of the labels we use to describe people, and which enable us to come to a (hopefully modifiable) judgement about their likely responses?

Sure, fight against inappropriate and harmful categorisations, and the misapplication of certain attributes to categories (this is a large part of what politics and religion are about, after all - getting others to share our way of categorising things). But don't imagine that you can dispense with *all* categories.

Noggin

OK Echo, it was me - and I'm most abjectly sorry. Clearly I unintentionally touched a nerve somehow. I really do hold you in high regard and I was probably, foolishly trying to make some idiotic point. Please forgive.

toxx

Of course, I agree Noggin. Language depends on categorisation. Once again I have to mention "Polyhedra and the Abominations of Leviticus" by D Bloor.

In addition to their linguistic and philosophical reality, these categories are also psychologically 'real' in the sense that animals and newborn humans have them. The details of the experiments are quite entertaining. Babies dummies ('pacifiers' for the USA) are wired up to a monitor that detects the sucking rate. This rate increases according to the interest the baby is taking in its environment. Continuing to show the little 'un the same kind of thing produces boredom, but something different causes the sucking graph to shoot up! Hence we can tell when our little friend categorises something as sufficiently different to be interesting.

It can be argued that the differences will only be gross perceptual features; but increasingly sophisticated methodologies seem to show that the categorisation is rather more than that.

toxx

Absolutely, az
It's always seemed odd to me that people are still defined in relation to the very entity that they don't believe in! Does 'humanist' cover the same ground, I wonder, without reference to a god of any sort?

Elf

Thing is, Elfi, it's so often 'Secular Humanist' which again introduces a negative reference to a deity.

toxx

toxx, isn't 'humanist' enough without the 'secular'? Then there need be no deist inference as far as I can see....

Elf

For some, I guess it is. However, it is possible to be both a humanist and a theist. Hence, further clarification is a permissible option IMHO.

toxx

Humanism like most of these things is a bit wooly in definition. Loosely it can be used to mean prioritising humans in some way. For example, recently in my reading I noticed the Byzantine philosopher Michael Psellos (Orthodox Christian) described as humanist because his histories put people as the cause of events rather than the usual procedure of putting everything down to 'divine providence'.

Less generally we talk about humanists who prioritise people in their life goals. This isn't easily compatible with prioritising gods (unless you consider the gods to be people) or with rejection of the material world, hence there are a lot of secular humanists. This group doesn't cover all atheists though.

There are the LaVey Satanists (officially atheist), who I guess I would describe as egoists. This sounds selfish but I actually consider it quite honest. I suppose you could consider it a subset of humanism in the same way as the self is a subset of humanity, or maybe you say that in some cases egoists are also humanists because many of the prime motives of their ego are towards social interaction.

'Humanist'?

I don't understand why I (or anyone) would need any label at all. If someone is asked if they believe in god(s) and they say no, why is there a need to label them with something relating to either religion or god(s)? Seems a bit presumptuous to me.


az

I thought you were a 'Freddist', az! But then, even 'nihilist' is a label. They're very difficult to escape.

toxx

I agree with this. We shouldn't have to be labelled by religion. If you think about it it seems a bit childish, doesn't it? When you were(or are) still a teenager people label and you do too. People are known as preps, goths, moshers, skaters, freaks, etc. Why should it be the same with religion? Do we really need to be so childish as to refer to someone as an aetheist if they don't have a religion or a catholic, or whatever the person maybe?

Hi there, NN. Here in Stoke 'never normal' is a fairly common description of someone who seems a bit nuts. There was even a local band of that name. You appear to have chosen that as a 'label' for yourself - so it's no use protesting!

toxx

Me: <>

NN (representatively of several similar comments) <>

At the present time there are many people for whom (at least in certain contexts) such distinctions are important. NN's remark is a good example of trying to alter other people's categories so that they divide the world differently. (Nothing wrong with that, of course, because we all do it as part of being social animals). We might also aim to change the contexts (situation categories) where the distinction is considered appropriate, either restricting them (the thrust of secularism), or expanding them (the programme of the religious right).

Noggin

I think it's fine to say something like, "So you're a christian?" (or whatever they may be), but not to call smeone by their religion, I've seen it done before. People saying things like, "Oh, that guys aetheist" or whatever. As in saying it like it's a ad thing.

I should say that I wasn't disagreeing with you, NN (being regarded, even if by only a few people, as slightly morally dodgy on account of being an atheist can be annoying); rather I was trying to place it in a wider context.

Two slightly different discussions going on, I think. One about the role of categorisation in being human, and another about the appropriateness of religiously based categories.

Noggin

This doesn't really have to do with religion, but yeah i think there are two different conversations going on. It doesn't really matter though,does it? Anyway do any of you have a religion? I'm just a bit curious.

I was a kabbalist for a while then

I was a Buddhist of the Zen school.

I was a Sufi but for most of my life

I have been a yogin but I'm not a Hindu.

Now I'm an Universalist but not an Unitarian.


alji

Not me, but I'm also not an atheist.


az

Bouncy

>>Its sort of a diluted version the old question over whether a people can abdicate. Can a Democracy be allowed to vote itself out of existence? How about restrict the rights of its people?<<

Check out the history of Liechtenstein.

It voted pretty much absolute power back to its Prince a short time back (decades rather than hundreds of years). And its people are doing pretty well out of it

The CIA site is probably the best

Jez

I'd probably generally be called an atheist, but of a slightly nonstandard kind. I don't doubt that some people have experiences that might reasonably be termed "spiritual". And I have a high regard for Buddhism.

Noggin