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

So can we say that 'God' exists in the same way that Chaos Theory exists, as a theory around which to construct 'Reality' and that as such 'It' is a fact? (because that is the question in the subject)

Although with Chaos there is observable evidence to support the theory, as opposed to 'God' which requires 'Faith' (ignorance, intellectual laziness or an evolved psyco-social mechanism to ensure the survival of the species?) in order to become 'Real'

None of the above.

Material... I thought about this a lot.

I think I've worked out that the Universe, by necessity, had to exist. Because there could either be something or nothing, right? And nothing is just a concept, so neither the concept of nothing nor something could exist, which yeilds a contradiction - neither nothing nor something exists, so therefore nothing cannot exist. Thus something had to exist. And everything that exists is really just concept. And so is this conclusion. And this conclusion is guff. And the preceding conclusion can be guff, too...

If I administered psychotropic chemicals to you, your impression of reality would be altered. Furthermore, the immaterial would seem as real as the material, often more so. And even if I killed you, you might not notice until it happened. But then I ask if you are still able to observe now that your brain is no longer functioning. I can see that you are dead, but what would you infer if you still existed, albeit no longer able to use your body. Would you see? Would you have any senses at all? Would the substance of your soul still be able to interact with or observe matter around you? And who is right if you decide that you are not dead: I, who can see your dead body, or you, who says that this is nonsense?

I think that things exist, even if we refuse to acknowledge them. However, if no-one ever did believe in them, or even consider them, they would not exist to anyone. And anyone who implied otherwise would either have to convince everyone that they were right, or be dismissed.

So:- Galileo was wrong, according to many of his contemporaries. If they wanted to, they could fly in the face of all evidence. If a man loses his leg but insists that it's still there, no matter how many times he falls, then it is - to him. He's wrong, just as I might be wrong or you might be wrong, but he thinks he's right.

The fact is, at the end of the day the truth is, literally, out there, but we don't know about it all. Isn't it the job of the scientist to say 'You know, Galileo might be right' or 'Well, perhaps I really don't have a leg'? And isn't it the job of the faithful to say 'They're wrong, I know it!' And if it means that life is more satisfying, then so be it. I'm sure, even so, that there were times when great scientists had to have faith that they were right, and that the common convictions were wrong? Pure scientists don't exist. People have faith in something, no matter how short-lived it is. And even those who have faith might lose it.

We're really all the same colours in different amounts, don't you think?

So I prefer to classify reality according to my own terms. I can take your terms on board, and if necessary shift my own perception when I find it hard to justify, but it's still mine and at the end of the day I can see what I dang well please!

- Jordan

I agree with Jordan to some extent. I too have spent much time, not as much as I should but quite a bit thinking about this. When I was in High School and was sitting in a quiet area thinking about, "who is this God person anyway" I got an answer. I wasn't on drugs (this was pre drug era) I wasn't fasting, I was just curious and questioning. I wanted to know what my relationship to this concept of God was, so I sat thinking about it. I didn't understand the answer completely when it came but a slowly growing sense of immense strength and power came to me and let me know that this power was there for me when ever I needed it. All I had to do was ask and accept that power and strength. Eleven years ago I went into treatment for alcoholism. I was capable of doing this out patient but it was not easy. I joined AA for the second time and that was also not easy. 6 months into sobriety I was told I should get additional counseling for Adult Child issues. This nearly ended my efforts because I did not want to face childhood issues again. I was at an AA meeting that weekend and we were joining hands at the end of the meeting as we always did, sudenly that power came to me. It comforted me and gave me the knowlege that I would make it though this and it would be with me. I choose to call that power The Holy Spirit because that is what I was taught. I agree that all this belief thing seems iffy but I feel the effect of that power when I call on it for help. People can share that power to encourage each other and they can call it what ever they want. If however they want to be "Christian" they generally call it "The Holy Spirit". Just like if you want to talk Euclidean Geometry you use the names for concepts that were established by Euclid. Saves time to have a common name for a common concept. I respect science for what it has done to change the world. I grieve the damage done in the name of religion during crusades and other terrible asaults in the name of God but science has gone down some pretty terrible paths too. Why?, because humanity is not God. We make mistakes, we do things with consequenses we didn't realize were possible, we all have regrets with hind sight.

Another topic
I don't blame Early man for evolving toward meat eating but modern man, using the knowlege that science has given us will probably choose to eat little or no meat due to the effect it has on the earth's biosystems to say nothing of individual digestion systems. I push when ever I can in the church organization I belong to for ecologically sound practice as "The right thing to do". I drive a gas powered car but hope that eventually a fuel cell powered car will be affordable. I vote for representatives that vote for ecologicaly sound policy and I despise GW jr for his arrogant posturing. (I didn't vote for him)

EggsEr, may I quote you on that? "Atheists are daredevils". Excellent!

Walk outside at night - look up - What more proof of God do you need ?

If you believe in good, then there has to be evil. Surely evil cannot be dounted to exist ?

Whether or not Hell exists depends on if you believe the bible to be God's word, or just man's attempt to rationalise the unfairness in the world by believing in ultimate judgement.

McKay: "Walk outside at night - look up - What more proof of God do you need?"

Look in your stocking on Christmas morning. What more proof of Santa Claus do you need?

Look under your pillow the morning after putting a tooth there. What more proof of the tooth fairy do you need?

Listen to attention seeking inbred backwoods loonies talking about the lights in the sky and the anal probes. What more proof of alien abductions do you need?

Watch a shaky cine film of a man in a gorilla suit. What proof of Bigfoot do you need?

Look at a photograph of a log floating in some water. What more proof of the Loch Ness monster do you need?

Read a book by David Icke. What more proof of lizardoid aliens running the world in secret do you need?

If ever you're called for jury service, McKay, do make sure to tell them before you start what you consider constitutes "proof". If the system works properly, you should be excused jury service and struck off the list of candidates permanently. I'd hate to think I or anyone I know might end up in the dock in front of a jury of twelve people who think like you. "Look at his face. What more proof do we need that he did it?".

H.

God does not send people who aren’t Christians lovingly to hell. I think He would rather have us all go to heaven but he made us to make our own DECISIONS. It would be a bit lame if we followed god like robots. Any way he let us make our own DECISIONS and that is how the world turned to evil, because Adam and eve DECIDED to eat the fruit (not apple) of the tree.

Hey Hoo & Star,
Well I have returned on the great iron bird in the sky from the western continent. Again I am shocked at how both extreme Abrahamic religion and the worship of science unfettered have grown. Never mind, another discussion perhaps....? Let's see what you've been up to in my absence..... :p

"What discipline warned us of the dangers of CFCs? Global warming? El Nino? Mad cow disease? No religion offers any practical help to AIDS sufferers. Science does. Science tells you where you and the world are conflicting. Some people choose to fight it, some choose to work with it. But our knowledge, as a global society, comes almost exclusively from the efforts of the rationalists."

Having been an Ecology Party member (now the Greens) back in the seventies and being laughed at for pointing out, most unscientifically of course, that the earth was weeping over issues like; Global Warming/Climate Change; the overdependance on nitrogen fertilisers and antibiotics; the wrongheadedness of feeding animal waste to herbivorous animals; the catastrophic effect of rainforest deforestation etc.... I do wonder what science was doing then (other than being the tool of big business.

Since when did modern science decide it has the entire monopoly on wisdom? Eclipses were being accurately predicted by many ancient societies, and they didn't use the many and over-complex tools of modern science to do so. Science didn't invent wisdom or knowledge. Many of today's pet science facts are in fact derived or inspired by the religiously motivated savages of old.

"Do you have anything at all in your spiritual toolbox which has *any* comparable success against cholera, leprosy, malaria, bubonic plague, smallpox, tuberculosis, measles, mumps, etc. etc. etc. ? How long a list do you want of diseases practically eradicated by the use of science? Can you name ONE condition or disease which is even noticeably affected in double blind tests by prayer or spiritual methods?

Strangely we do. If you keep up with your science, as you probably do, then how many cures have emerged in recent years from the medicine man's pouch or the aboriginals herbalism? Where does aspirin come from? Science didn't invent it for one thing! The Druids are reputed, by their enemies, to have been using it 2,000 years ago. This knowledge was then transferred through the writings of the pagan Greeks to the scholars of Islam. They held it in trust until it was wrenched from them in Spain's Reconquista (and condemned as satanic - well you win some and you lose some...lol).
As for science eradicating diseases, who says we should? Man's meddling in this aspect of nature has resulted in populations that are now more at risk from a global epidemic than at any time in our history. We have trusted the scientists and ended up in a world where no organism on the planet has not been exposed to a multitude of antibiotic and antiviral agents. End result - superbugs. The previous 'unscientific' mechanism was to build up your immune system gradually, and let the bugs occasionally check our population growth. Not very pleasant for the unfortunate victims I'll grant you, but you now live with the alternative, a planet that is grossly overcrowded, a race that is steadily poisoning itself and every other organism around it, and a people that are living in a constant state of low level sickness. Hmmm.... nice one science. As always meddling without any sense of social or natural responsibility. If it's science it must be good.
Oh yeah, and a little surprise for you. For once the looney religious right in the USA have prompted some decent research (it sure does hurt me to say that). They claimed that recovery figures for patients in hospitals where there was active 'faith support' (prayer meetings, religious visitors, faith on the agenda) was higher than those without by 10%. The US Government investigated and found that the figure was closer to 20%. Strange that...

"No imagination is required to picture a world without science. It was THIS world, until relatively recently. For over a thousand years after Christ, the Western world was primarily ruled by religion, and science did not exist. Look what it got us. Massive infant and child mortality, crusades, plagues, and basically a life which was "nasty, brutish and short". Science has doubled our lifespan, massively reduced infant mortality, eliminated most of the diseases which killed our forebears and given us the means to feed a global population twenty times the size of that of a few hundred years ago. Look at the world of William the Conqueror for a world without science. Would you want to live there? Now imagine a world without religion - a world that had NEVER had religion. No crusades, no Holocaust, no slavery, probably no September 11th, morality and ethic based on pragmatism and the good of all, so rooted in the past but not shackled to it by dogma. I'd rather live there. And I agree, I might as well wish gravity away."

Now I might not be a very good scientist, but I am a fairly good historian. So the boot is now on my foot. Wrong, wrong and wrong...heehee. For a thousand years after Christ, science was just about everywhere, as was religion. As stated before all the advances of the pagan Greeks and Romans were preserved and improved upon by the Byzantines and the Arabs. And this doesn't even begin to touch on that being developed by the meso-american civilisations and China.
The world, and by this I assume, by your use of clues, that you mean the western world, was ruled by despots, not religion (as it is still ruled). It was the destruction of all the older faiths that led the way to power without the checks and balances religions originally placed upon it.
The Christian Crusades did not even begin until the 11th century, and as any scholar knows were instigated by religion, but financed by greed and exploited by politics.
As for lifespans etc., well there is another story. Modern archaeology has shown that in Britain for instance the average lifespan for any one surviving to their fifth birthday was probably 65-70 years! Infant mortality was high, but was more due to malnutrition than disease (and comparable with third world figures today). People generally though were as tall as us, weighed in a little leaner - but far fitter, had all their teeth well into old age (no refined sugar = no dental caries), suffered from various ailments - but survived them, often had broken limbs - but had them set well. As a proportion of the population you had a greater chance of dying of old age as opposed to war, than the average western european in the 20th century.
Slavery still exists today and on a massive scale, especially of children, and is far more abusive than that practised by our iron age and dark age ancestors. Slavery was normally the result of criminal activity and had time limits - they had no prisons after all.
As for science at the turn of the tenth century let's see what they had....good steel, watermills, organic agriculture that according to the Domesday book produced a net surplus of 25-30% (better than most modern western nations now), trans-atlantic travel, imported goods from all over the world (indian saffron, chinese silk, venetian glass, african ivory and so on), effective symptomatic remedies for most day-to-day diseases, simple surgery up to and including neural surgery (the proportion of people who survived surgical amputation then would be impressive today, even with our antibiotics and obsession with hygiene). I could go on for pages.
The most telling phrase from this passage is: "and given us the means to feed a global population twenty times the size of that of a few hundred years ago." Oh boy, super, ain't that just great? The politics and science that go into trying to survive such a massive overpopulation have nearly destroyed us all, and every other passenger on our little blue planet. Thanks science, but I think I'd like the 'dark' ages better.

But hey, let's not be totally negative, what has modern science given us in the last thousand years? Lets see: Gunpowder, Machine Guns, Rifled Artillery, Flight, Carpet Bombing, Napalm, Nuclear Weapons, Germ Warfare, Antibiotics (and their catastrophic overuse), the Infernal Combustion Engine, Ballistic Missiles, leaky Atomic Energy Plants, CFC's, Global Warming (yes I know the jury's still out on that one), Intensive Agriculture, Acid Rain, Organic Phosphates, Nitrogen Fertilisers, Super bugs, and (aaargh) Mobile Phones. Have I missed anything?

Possibly one of the reasons I chose to walk down my path was my increasing despair at progress without responsibility. I have no real problem with science, but more with the rationalists of the 19th and 20th centuries who decided religion was hokum and threw the baby out with the bath water.
For all its great successes the rationalists never really found a way to replace the need for a code of ethics and morals, a reason to be, a sense of purpose that the various religions provided. They tried to put Freud and Jung up as an alternative, but that has foundered in a morass of organised self-pity (at £50 per hour). Result - an ethical and moral vacuum, desert of the spiritless poor.

Well I think its time to draw breath and let you get a word in edgeways
Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

Perhaps we ought to consider the fact that it was not science that brought about many of these terrible plagues on humanity. (Mobile phones being the most proliferous and disgusting!) This can be argued in the same way that one can argue that religion was not responsible for the Crusades. As far as I can make out (and, let's face it, I'm not sure that is very far) the motivations for most of these terrible catastrophes are politics, economics (read 'greed', ye cynics) or military. (I believe this is not the same as politics - though the two often work in tandem, I believe they are distinct. Either way, the difference is minimal.) Science, in itself, is simply being applied to make the tools with which to fight wars, or sustain unfeasibly large populations, and the short-sightedness is in those applying the science, not in the science itself. Similarily, religion is exploited by the ruthless as a means to an end.

Why do we keep using the words 'science' and 'religion' when we really wish to refer to something else? All we are doing is trying to give each other a bad name through dishonest use of language. It's almost like one of those fights that kids pick in playgrounds.

- Jordan

'You Must Have Faith' is laziness. It's the answer I got in Catholic Sunday School when my questions outstripped the Priest's intellectual capability to answer.
What you must have is experience. This can be individual experience or come in a group setting. The experience of communicating with a spiritual presence is difficult to describe, as is the experience of seeing the divine in the everyday world.
How you get this experience and what you do with it is up to you. There are too many pathways to the divine, in whatever form your mind desires, for me to prescribe a route.
For me, I chose a druidic path, and it serves me well, for I have an open and enquiring mind - and a well-rounded sense of humour. The latter is not always appreciated by the po-faced members of some paths I can tell you.
But 'faith' - pah! If someone gives that lame old excuse for an answer you are assured they have no idea of what they speak.
Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

Balrog,
So the Christian God lets people make their own decisions?
If that is true then he is fallible, and if he is fallible then he cannot exist.
For the Christian God is meant to be Omniescent, Omnipotent and Omnipresent.
Thus nothing can be done that he does not know about, that he does not allow and that he is not present for. If indeed he is omniescent and knows all that has been, is and will be, then his will is already manifest and we have no freedom.
Don't get me wrong, I have no personal beef with Christianity. But I believe that this path is being destroyed by its dogma, and people who depend upon its central tenets (none of which are bad) are being let down.
The purpose of this dogma is to control the worshipper's experience of the divine and thus ensure that they will come through the priesthood for interpretation of it, rather than forge a personal relationship.
Members of all the Abrahamic religions need to reassess their relationship to the divine and come to realise that only the merest fraction of it is represented by the book.
Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

"The purpose of this dogma is to control the worshipper's experience of the divine and thus ensure that they will come through the priesthood for interpretation of it, rather than forge a personal relationship."

It's funny you should say that, Matholwch, because while I almost entirely agree with you, it can't be a coincidence that one of the most objectionable people we've had on the site in quite a while (in my experience) was a Christian who had precisely that "personal relationship". He has daily two way conversations with Christ, and knows him personally. He also believes that Catholics aren't Christians and thinks all homosexuals should be condemned for their "anus-lust", which would be contemptible if it wasn't so damn funny, or is that the other way round?

Anyway, you've written a very long post above which I'll have to digest a bit more before coming back here and failing to trump your knowledge of history.

H.

Just read the journal on My Space.
Fablefilou.

'Look in the sky @ night' etc.
I presume you mean the moon, etc? Yep, I look at the moon and think, 'Wow, the moon! Amazing! Beautiful!' because that's what it is, a very pleasing sight. I might be whelmed (not so much over-) by the sight, space being so large and impressive and star-filled etc (wax, wax). HOWEVER! The majesty of something's creation is not what impresses me, rather the existence of the things I'm looking at and that I can see them at all. (I might, if I'm in that mood, yell 'Selene' etc. but that is not to say I believe in a *deity* of that name, rather that I believe in the moon. Right?)
Good and evil exist and they are constructs of, and products of, human nature. A nasty trait of several religions is to blame all human failings on an evil being, rather than acknowledging one's own faults.
Today I was pondering on all this moon business. Rainbows- I find them pleasing to look at and uplifting. I am not uplifted because I see it as a promise there will never be another flood, nor am I less impressed because I know it is an effect of the sun. Why not just enjoy the rainbow?
(sorry if this sounds New Age, because I'm really *not*.)
Today I saw some glorious sunbeams. When I was ickle, and God was the only god I'd ever heard of (school's fault, btw.) I was equally impressed by sunbeams but still, what got me was they themselves rather than the thought of that which supposedly created them. At the time, the idea of a big old chap pulling the strings behind the clouds was far too prosaic, so I never bought it even then.
Was I therefore given an unfair decision, turned away from Christianity at an age too young to understand it? nope, since what turned me from your God was what you think of as one of his less important by-products.

Hi Hoo! (I'm sure there's a song in there somewhere....).
I'm sure that your 'objectionable christian' did claim a 'personal relationship' to his god. Many of them do.
However, the touchstone is to ask them:
1. Is the Bible is the revealed word of god.
2. Is is true?
3. Do you need to strictly observe this revealed word of god to be saved?
I bet the answer you receive is yes to all three. I'm not here to criticise people who do find a real relationship with their Christian God. Good on them, and I hope it brings them much wisdom and joy. Unfortunately they seem to be as rare as hens teeth. Most that I have met seem both book-bound and church-bound.
I look forward to your intelligent and humourous deconstruction of my other points.
Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

Hoovooloo, did you mean Caleb? 'Cause I found his views on the subject of faith pretty objectionable.
Anyway, I think a personal relationship with God is essential for a good Christian. However, so is a personal relationship with other Christians. And what's wrong with sharing the experiences of the very first Christians - by which I mean those in the Bible?
Just to clarify, I know that (a) a lot of the things in there are mistranslated; (b) some of it is rather, out-of-date; and (c) the Bible is not the only piece of Christian scripture on the planet (and I'm not just talking the Apocrypha and suchlike). However, it is valuable - we get to read about the experiences of the men, before us, could speak to God in the same terms that all of us ought to. It's not something to be sneezed at.
As for the Church thing: Meeting other people at Church is all part of being a Christian - united we stand, divided we fall etc., etc., cliches etc. Most of the problems with Churches arise from members of the congregation developing an ingroup/outgroup thing - not the best way of looking at things - and start to develop preconceptions of how other people act outside their own group. This is not something that ought to be encouraged. Much of the hatred of homosexuals that we see around us (I recall one person stating that one was 'better dead than gay,' which is about the most twisted example I can think of) is encouraged in this way.
It must be said that some of this is a direct result of the persecution that non-christians, and even other christians, dish out so liberally. It is an insult to objectivity to allow such preconceptions to colour the relationships that we have with other people.
By the way - this debate thing is all very useful material. Please keep the opinions rolling in!

- Jordan

Correction to above: '...the men, before us, ^who could speak to God...'

"The purpose of this dogma is to control the worshipper's experience of the divine and thus ensure that they will come through the priesthood for interpretation of it, rather than forge a personal relationship"

You have either never been involved, involved in a very circuitous manner or not recently involved. I am an Episcopalian from infancy and we were never taught to know God only through the priesthood. Our responsiblity is to know God personally. This requires reading the Bible, fellowship with other Christians, prayer/meditation and serious commitment. Possibly this is not so where you are.

Matholwch /|\ the last posting was to your comment which I quoted first. I am still getting the hang of the way this works. Sorry.

Hi EggsER!
Let's see, my involvement is limited to twenty years in the Roman Catholic Church, and more recently four years actively supporting my wife in the local Evangelical Church.
The main thrust behind the comment did come mostly from my Catholic background, where the priesthood and the supremacy of the Pope is everything. However, as I have begun to get involved in the periphery of our local Evangelical and Pentecostal churches, I see a similar role being taken on by the Minister and the Elders.
It is interesting to note also that if amongst my pagan friends we find a closet Christian we try to be very supportive and welcoming. Within my order (the British Druid Order) we have a thriving group of people who label themselves as Christian-Druids, and they are well-respected. We don't believe that we have the right to limit or define how a person approaches and practices their relationship with the divine, nor the face that divine being(s) should wear.
However, if it was to become known to the Evangelical Church that I was a pagan Druid then my wife and children would be asked to leave (or make a very difficult choice). There is absolutely no tolerance for non-Christians whatsoever. We do not fit the profile as defined by dogma/scripture and are thus an anathema, unrepentant sinners, and probably pawns of the devil. Very sad.
I have seen the response of a Christian Church doing this to a friend of mine. Twenty-five years of service to her Church, then it came out that she was also a Bard of the Order of Bards, Ovates and Druids. She was unceremoniously dumped by the Church, all her Christian friends turned their backs on her and she lost her job to boot. When she confronted them and asked what had changed she was quoted acres of scripture - 2,000 year old dogma.
Neither of the examples above result from an understanding of the divine nature of being, but rather from blind acceptance of dogma/scripture which is promoted and maintained by priests and ministers. This dogma/scripture defines in very narrow terms how you should conduct your relationship with god, and thus limits it only to that which is acceptable to the priesthood/ministry.
Before you think I am Christian-basher, there is no difference here between this and Islam or Judaism. Nor do I believe that all Christians are so limited, but you must admit a lot are.
Blessings,
Craig /|\.