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

Hi UnC et Thorny

Part the first.
I know you haven't said that science knows everything but it is an attitude I have come up against time and again here and in the Freedom From Faith Foundation thread. Another is that reality can ONLY be explained through scientific method and all other methods are bunk. Ho hum, I just love arrogance (and don't start looking hurt I did not say that you were arrogant).

When will you understand that I have no need to prove my experience. After all I don't see my druidry conflicting with scientific endeavour, which I generally support as a truth-seeking methodology. It's up to those who find my experience challenges their world-view to disprove it.

Part the second.
The problem with a written scripture is that it quickly becomes set in stone and time. The people who actually understood the symbolism contained within the stories die and their successors begin to encase the words themselves in a holy, unquestionable form. This is called DOGMA.

Dogma is easy to manipulate the needs of the powerful, for it cannot be questioned. Anyone who does question it is seen as a threat and is persecuted, often with the full force of the state. The Abrahamic religions are past masters at this.

Unfortunately for these religions eventually other philosophies will come along and sweep them aside as they are increasingly unable to keep up with change in society and technology.

The reasons that druids refused to commit their teachings to paper was to prevent the development of dogma. They taught, and now teach again, the skills of logic, reasoning and rhetoric. Each druid is expected to walk their own path, learning from others but not necesarily accepting that which they have not experienced.

Other pagan paths have similar approaches as my friends here will attest.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\

Hi there, EMR

I'm not going to go through all the various posts finding the bits I want to reply to, as I am now on holiday and have a LOT of stuff to do

Proving my beliefs - if I was trying to

a) impose my system on a whole other group of people (like changing the laws of a country to reflect my view, or maintaining those laws in the face of opposition from those who do not share my view) or

b) convince or convert someone else to my system of belief

then yes, I feel anyone (theist, atheist, et al) should have to prove that those beliefs were valid in the wider field, not simply for me and mine. And I should have to avoid assumptions that relied on my belief system, or my argument would be circular.

However, if I am trying to explain my belief system, and my purpose is to educate you or others about why or what I believe, then using examples of my experiences from within my belief structure is acceptable, as long as I explain them.

So if I tell you that I have had personal religious experience of my gods, then I expect you to accept that, from my PoV, my experiences have passed the 'tests' of my belief system, and are valid for me.

But if I tell you that /you/ should accept my experiences, based solely on my own 'tests', and use them to change /your/ beliefs, you are perfectly entitled to tell me to go stick them in the nearest bodily outlet...

How's that for a starter?

Jez

Hi there Math

Any chance of thee and me being in the same place at the same time?

Drop me an off-list email, eh?

Jez

<>


Hi Math, do you mean from the likes of me? Well, for my own part, I don't know if science can explain everything. BUT, what I would say is that any religious explanation that conflicts with a scientific one is probably wrong. Hence my feeling that 'Abrahamic' religion is utter nonsense, or, as you suggest, an allegory to establish social cohesion, but I wouldn't give it any credence at all beyond that.

<>
Fine by me, but I think you already realise that, for materialists like myself, it is much more likely that what you experience is an internal experience rather than one which derives from the 'real world'. And, of course, you're not going to bother giving any reasons for us to believe otherwise, are you?

I find myself agreeing with echo again. The principle "act of faith" in science is that nature has a consistent underlying order (although I also believe in the "fundamental interconnectedness of all things"), and that that order can be understood. Of course we don't know where that order comes from, or whether an internally inconsistent universe is possible (though for *us* it would be like a four sided triangle), and the order of the real universe is always more intricate than our model of it.

Also our models include patterns that have been elaborated by us, and which have a status that is scientifically neither real nor unreal. Money is a good example. Gods may be another, but that's a suggestion rather than a claim.

Noggin

"I feel like I just said *way* more than was really necessary there. I hope it all made sense."

Oh yes, it does, though it probably interests me in a way other than was the message you were trying to transmit.

"An atheist doesn't have to prove anything if atheism is, as I believe, an absence of belief. They don't have any beliefs to prove."

In a posting made at the same time, though I think a different post, I talked about 'values' rather than 'bleifs'. I did this consciously, as I was beginning to get confused about the discussion. From my POV, I have no control over what any person believes and anyone should be free to believe what they want; the important thing is their values, as it is these which inform their decisions in the physical world - and that's where it impinges on my freedoms.

Example 1: X believes the world is being taken over by hostile aliens but her value system holds that she must abide by the law of the land regardless. So she can seek to persuade others - using lawful means - of the truthfulness of her beliefs, but otherwise takes no action.

Example 2: Y believes the world is being taken over by hostile aliens and her value system holds that she must use whatever force she deems necessary to save the world, so she kills anyone she indentifies as an alien. Including me.

Example 3: Z believes the world is being taken over by hostile aliens and her value system holds that she must utilise all lawful means possible to segregate the aliens and prevent them taking over the world. so she uses her position as a legislator to pass laws which will hinder and discriminate against those she believes to be aliens. Including me.

So I'm more concerned with value systems which inform actions, than beliefs per se, as many people can believe the same thing but many of them will not employ methods to express their beliefs (value systems) which will impinge upon my freedoms.

"I believe that it's not very good to believe something just blindly, without having any reason to suggest that it is the right thing to believe."

I suppose the important thing here is : how do you differentiate between 'right' and 'wrong' (as in 'the right thing')?

"I take the view that atheism is the default position, and then if something religious proves itself to me, I would take a view consistent with that religious aspect."

A perfectly valid belief - but still a belief. Hence, if your position is that beliefs should be proved, so should this one. I would hold that the correct theoretical default position is not the one you or I hold, but a position where nothing is believed. However, existing evidence points towards this not being a position human beings are capable of, so the default factory settings seem to be that we all run on beliefs of one kind or another, that inform our values. Or, possibly, our values inform our beliefs e.g. I really do not think I could ever believe in any religion which required a racist value system from me.

"I think that one should never believe anything without proof"

Except this? :D

"I suppose I can prove my viewpoint, because I can show fossil evidence and the position of celestial bodies in the galaxy and scientific evidence like that to support my non-religious viewpoint and my belief that the earth came about without the aid of some sort of supernatural phenomenon."

To me, this is a non-sequitor. AFAIK, the creation of the earth etc is only relevant in this context in discussions with Christians. Are you confusing Christianity with all religions?

"If your 'religion' is really an ethical system and doesn't involve the belief in supernatural or, I suppose, unusual occurrences/people, then you wouldn't have to prove it."

but why would I have to prove anything supernatural to you? As long as I'm not asking you to believe the same things I do, I don't see why I should have to prove my own belief set. But perhaps you're confusing "proselytisation" with religion? In which case, aren't we back to the mindset religion = Christianity/Islam/Judaism?

Perhaps I ought to ask you to prove these beliefs?

Hi again

Math, I'm not looking hurt, you made some good points. About science being able to explain everything, I'd like to make some points about what I think science actually *is* and how it relates to the universe:

I'm sure that everything in the universe can be explained, but not necessarily by what we consider science. For example, if a whale appeared in the outer stratosphere we might consider it to be scientifically unexplainable, or a religious sign, and we may never be able to find out why it happened. But in the giant scheme of things, there will actually be an explanation, be it freak wormhole, unknown technology or act of infinitely powerful being known as a god.

I don't find it difficult to believe that there could be a god, or many gods, or spirits of the earth, or anything like that, because in an infinite universe anything is possible. And if what humans consider to be gods did exist, in my view, they will not be inherently unexplainable beings, they will be scientific (for lack of a better word) or natural things. Cause and effect. If they exist, then they do because something caused it, even if we (as insignificant humans) or even they don't know it, or could ever know it.

I think that "science" as a human invention is just as infallible and untrustworthy as we are ourselves. I don't think that we are nearly clever enough to figure out the universe, and our science is a just an extension of our own minds.

However, I find it incredibly difficult to believe that by some fluke humans thousands of years ago managed to stumble across the exact truth of the universe, which happily managed to coincide with their own petty needs. I find it harder to believe that the "truth" happened to evolve with the needs of the believers but still remain the truth.

Someone mentioned before that athiests tend to be defensive so I'd like to answer that:

Guilty.

I often go on the defensive when talking about religion (although I hope I haven't done so here or on any other thread on H2G2; it's generally when I'm talking and I don't have time to collect my thoughts) mostly because I have had bad experiences with religious people of the Christian variety (outside H2G2). I also tend to get defensive when people assume something of me because of what I believe (or don't believe) that offends me (which again, hasn't happened here).

Growing up I harboured an unhealthy resentment for religion, especially Christianity because of my experiences. I hope I've grown above that now, and I now have great respect for *good* people, who happen to be religious, but I have NO patience for people who assume they are good BECAUSE they're religious.

Anyway, that's a confusing explanation to why some athiests may seem defensive, or then again it could just be me.

Just as a sideline, in my own head, it doesn't matter a fig to me if someone wants to believe that their own personal god is a green squirrel who lives on the moon. They can believe that if the knowledge that the squirrel loves them makes them happy, but what would bother me is if the squirrel worshipper decided to save the world from their *false* beliefs and introduce them to the Church of the Green Moon Squirrel as the one true faith, first by standing on the street corner, then by going house to house, then by entering my home via late night ads, then by becoming the 'default' religion and printing All Hail the Squirrel on money, then by declaring war on the Hedgehog worshippers on the next continent.

"I don't find it difficult to believe that there could be a god, or many gods, or spirits of the earth, or anything like that, because in an infinite universe anything is possible. And if what humans consider to be gods did exist, in my view, they will not be inherently unexplainable beings, they will be scientific (for lack of a better word) or natural things. Cause and effect. If they exist, then they do because something caused it, even if we (as insignificant humans) or even they don't know it, or could ever know it."

Which is the view you will find the pagans who post regularly here take.

We view the spiritual world as part and parcel of the natural world; just because some of it tends to be mainly accessible to us through senses which don't register on cameras or other measuring equipment we currently have available does not make it unreal, just, so far, unprovable to what we regard as science at the moment.

Our worldview of the sorts of beings who mainly live in this spiritual world, which overlaps heavily with our own (for want of a better analogy), is very dissimilar to the worldview of the Abrahim faiths, and so quite alien to what most people think when they think "religion". For example, we regard all beings, including humans and gods, as being part of one spectrum. our gods are not infallible, nor do they know everything; like us, they make wrong choices, they make mistakes, and our relationship with them is one which involves a degree of equality, based on gifts we give to each other, and negotiation (or, sometimes, downright refusal) if they want something from us, or we want something from them.

By the same token, we take care, in our own homes or out in the coutnryside, to ask the unseen beings if we can share their territory amicably. There are times when landwights have been known to refuse, in which case we go elsewhere. My housewight went through a phase of breaking glasses until I found out, by trial and error, what she liked to drink and I give her some of that, from time to time. It's a partnership built on respect, and on the knowledge that they've been around a lot longer than any individual human being, so they tend to get their own way on their own territory, in the same way as householder. But that comes from our respect for that situation - and there are many ignorant pagans who trample in and disregard them, in the same way as non-pagans, so I'm not making any claims for moral superiority for our co-religionists as a whole.

"However, I find it incredibly difficult to believe that by some fluke humans thousands of years ago managed to stumble across the exact truth of the universe, which happily managed to coincide with their own petty needs. I find it harder to believe that the "truth" happened to evolve with the needs of the believers but still remain the truth."

I don't know what Math will make of this comment but it beats me, I'm afraid. Is it based on the beliefs of the Abrahamic religions?

"Growing up I harboured an unhealthy resentment for religion, especially Christianity because of my experiences. I hope I've grown above that now, and I now have great respect for *good* people, who happen to be religious, but I have NO patience for people who assume they are good BECAUSE they're religious."

Most Christians I know would say the same thing. Unfortunately, a lot wouldn't. However, that's down to people, I think, rather than the tenets of the religion, as I understand it (I used to lead Bible Studies for adults).

" what would bother me is if the squirrel worshipper decided to save the world from their *false* beliefs and introduce them to the Church of the Green Moon Squirrel as the one true faith then by becoming the 'default' religion and printing All Hail the Squirrel on money, then by declaring war on the Hedgehog worshippers on the next continent."

I think you'll find no dissent from the pagans here.

that being persecuted for questioning the current dogma beliefs of the times thing happened to Jesus during his time too.

Hi Jez - Your comments make sense and seem perfectly reasonable. Works for me.

Sure,sure,sure,but all the same what's the dividing ground, if any, between what people categorize as religion Vs. categorize as philosophy or the "philoso-religions?" That's what I wanna know.
}Pow!{

Hi HS

I see what you're saying about 'values' vs 'beliefs'. This seems quite logical.

<>

I just mean that you shouldn't believe something without any reason to think that it's something that ought to be believed. As Jez said, if it's a reason that falls within the scope of your religion/belief system, that's all right, but there's got to be something more than 'This is what my family has always believed' or 'I woke up this morning and decided that I'm going to believe X today.'

<>

I am not confusing Christianity with religion - I was just using this as an example, because it's just that I happen to be more familiar with the Judeo-Christian belief systems than with any other belief system. I have many relatives that are either Jewish or Catholic, and so I have more knowledge about the way those religions work. So I often use Judeo-Christian examples to illustrate my point, because I have less chance of screwing up the argument and displaying my ignorance.

I don't come into contact with many people of other religions in real life - most of my peers, if they are not atheist or agnostic, are Jewish or Christian, and a few of them are Muslim. Thus when I have a philosophical or theological discussion with one of them (which happens fairly often) I find myself arguing against the monotheist viewpoint. Plus, living in a conservative neighbourhood in the US, we get a lot of right-wing fundamentalists that one must defend oneself against - hence a sort of automatic rut I fall into of trying to prove that atheist does not equal immoral.

Once again, I very deeply apologise if some of my comments come across as being prejudiced or inconsiderate of people with non-Judeo-Christian beliefs. I am always working to correct this mindset, but the fact that I simply don't have as much knowledge or life experience of other religions than I do of Judaism and Christianity simply lends itself to the fact that I use more examples having to do with the 'Abrahamic' faiths.

Well technically I could be categorized as Episcopalean...

"I see what you're saying about 'values' vs 'beliefs'. This seems quite logical."

I thought we'd agree, once I explained where I'm coming from.

" there's got to be something more than 'This is what my family has always believed' or 'I woke up this morning and decided that I'm going to believe X today.'"

Unless the person is psychotic, there is always a reason. In fact, there is always a reason even if the person is psychotic. It is in the nature of human beings to rationalise in order to justify their actions, to themself if to no one else. the best example in fiction I ever read was Solzhenitsyn's "First Circle", in which he makes sense of Stalin by considering how the man might have rationalised his behaviour.

Having said that, it is not always possible to discover what the reasons are because some people are:
- uncommunicative deliberately: they are insecure or enraged
- uncommunicative without wishing to be so: self deception or confused thinking
My mother had no capacity at all to think in an orderly manner and it was impossible, despite years of trying, to obtain information from her in any form which made sense or had an order to it. I guess that's why I was so receptive when I was promoted into a job which required training to become an investigator - or why i did well, in the end, at the mechanical end of psychology, where you have to put together potential solutions on the basis of few clues.

"So I often use Judeo-Christian examples to illustrate my point, because I have less chance of screwing up the argument and displaying my ignorance."

'nuff - at least that way you have the chance for your arguments to make sense to the greatest numbers of listeners without having to unpack them.
The problem, of course, is when you end up talking to bloody-minded pagans...

"hence a sort of automatic rut I fall into of trying to prove that atheist does not equal immoral."

Oh dear, what a bind! I suppose I'd be tempted just to ask them why on earth they make such an odd assumption!

"I am always working to correct this mindset, but the fact that I simply don't have as much knowledge or life experience of other religions than I do of Judaism and Christianity simply lends itself to the fact that I use more examples having to do with the 'Abrahamic' faiths."

No, no, sweetheart - no offence. but please understand that, from our POV, if we don't - somewhat boringly (for us as well as you!) - point out these assumptions, they'll just carry on being made plus it will be assumed, as we're in the audience, that we accept them, too. It's a bit like deciding that no, I'm not going to sit at the back of the bus just because it's assumed that's my proper place.

Hi UnC

I like your take on science, there are quite a number of points of convergence with my own. This could mean, of course, that you are descending into my madness

"However, I find it incredibly difficult to believe that by some fluke humans thousands of years ago managed to stumble across the exact truth of the universe, which happily managed to coincide with their own petty needs."

How about that over millenia intelligent people managed to piece together some common truths and wisdoms from their experiences of the universe? They believed that some of this came from direct contact with non-human (though not necessarily non-terrestial) and more advanced sentiences. This core of wisdom was passed down, maintained and added to from generation to generation by the brightest of each community.

I can understand the defensiveness you explain. As a recovering catholic (it's 35 years since my last confession) I have an understanding of the machinations of that Church and the way that abrahamics attack anything that hastens their slackening grip on social domination.

Atheists though should have no need for such defensiveness. Indeed they should be the most tolerant of souls for they have nothing to fear from the delusions of such as I. My gods cannot strike them down (if they should even want to), because they do not exist. Eternity looks a bit of a b*gg*r though .

Enjoy your short life and care not what we say

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\

Math, you haven't crossed swords with Justin Junior ( GrandSamDonald) yet! See 'Satanic Filth' @ F2209693?thread=691266

Hoo is in full combat mode in 'Evolutionists are not Christians'
@ F2209693?thread=691262&skip=40&show=20




alji

Thanks Alji . Both have added a new spring in my step, let battle commence!!

Many blessings,
Matholwch /|\

Ooh.. That "Evolutionist's are not Christians" Thread sounds messy. If there is going to be any ramming of opinions down other people's throats then count me out. unless of course anybody needs support with part of an argument or to come up with some examples of something they can't quite think of at the moment. Then i think you(all) will know where to reach me...
-Thorn.

"However, I find it incredibly difficult to believe that by some fluke humans thousands of years ago managed to stumble across the exact truth of the universe, which happily managed to coincide with their own petty needs." me

"How about that over millenia intelligent people managed to piece together some common truths and wisdoms from their experiences of the universe? They believed that some of this came from direct contact with non-human (though not necessarily non-terrestial) and more advanced sentiences. This core of wisdom was passed down, maintained and added to from generation to generation by the brightest of each community." Math

Just a quick answer, I have to go to w**k soon

"Their experiences of theuniverse" were the experiences of a superstitious people with primitive technology. The only way that they could have known the exact *truth* of the universe is if someone who knew actually told them (as you said), but I don't personally believe that. I think that it's far more likely that the beliefs arose because they seemed to fit the answer of the how and why of the universe, as they saw it. Of course, I can't prove that.

Anyway, pagan beliefs are a lot more appealing to me than the Abrahamic (?) religions, and if I were to believe in something, I'd like to believe in that, unfortunately I am cursed with a skeptical mind, so it's off to oblivion for me after this life

I hope that made sense, I'd like to continue this in a few hours if you're awake

Aug! no freud smiley(just kidding)! will have to do instead. "Und, zen, ackordink to zis new data I have received from you..." It would seem that you say that what you believe in is not believing in things. That's clear as crystal (to me anyways). Throw that line of reasoning at a literalist though, and BOOM!