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

<> me

<> Andrew

Andrew, you're not *quite* answering the question here. To state boldly: everything we have discovered scientifically says our existence is the result of random factors. You introduce god to get the same effect. Why bother? It's simply not necessary (in the context of humans and evolution). Which kinda leads to..


<>

I've no idea what caused the universe, or its laws. The problems of 'why does anything exist' is the ultimate one, I suppose. If I say the universe is an uncaused effect, then I think you'll disagree and say that god created everything, and *he* is the uncaused effect. Which sounds like nonsense to me. Again, it merely adds something unnecessary and undetectable to the whole shebang.

According to cosmologists, there may be an uncountable number of 'universes', each with slightly different laws to our own (which are fine-tuned remarkably well to allow life-as-we-know-it. It obviously follows that we're in the one which is fine-tuned. I find this far more plausible than some triple-O deity creating everything. Although this is, for me, just half the argument.

I find the notion of the universe being created with the potential for life, weeeeeeeell, plausible. It doesn't directly contradict anything we've discovered, even if it's philosophically extraneous and doesn't have any evidence *for* it.

The notion of humans being created is simply wrong. *All* the empirical evidence is against it, and there *no* evidence for it at all, even allowing for some philosophical hoop-juggling.

So, on balance (for me, natch), the universe being created is not a silly idea, because we don't have any evidence either way. The idea of a personal, triple-O god in whose image we're made, is just laughably stupid, given what we know about how we've come to exist.

<>

Of course it does, especially if, as Andrew says, the Bible "doesn't interpret itself." It must be interpreted in some context. I don't think it's quite fair to say that "the scriptures are merely a matter of personal interpretation", though, because any interpretation with any influence is a social product. Of course there are a number of "traditions of interpretation" that can be quite at odds with each other (for those who haven't watched it yet az's link in post 26737 is excellent). And understanding the cherrypicking that results means understanding the context. And this really requires a secular viewpoint (and I stress secular rather than atheist) so that the context can be seen in an unbiased way.

There will be something on evolution in a near future post, but for now I'm off to

Noggin

Having thought about this a bit more, I'd have to say that, in a sense, the bible *does* interpret itself. It was, after all, written "through time", rather than all-of-a-piece (and even the apparent clear break between the OT and the NT was created after the event), with later writers copying, cherry-picking and revising earlier texts. However, the two tier structure of the bible, the fact that we don't know when the various books were written or finalised with any precision, and that they don't appear in the bible in chronological order of composition, tends to obscure the evolution of the bible's interpretive traditions of itself.

Two other things need to be added. Firstly, such interpretive traditions are not the preserve of religion, but exist in some form in all areas of human thought, including science.

Secondly, this view is a secular one. The idea of an interpretive tradition, and especially the evolutionary changes they undergo, sits uneasily with the notion of an unchanging divinity. Religion seems ill-equipped to analyse its own development in a consistent way.

Noggin

Noggin: I'm not entirely clear on what you mean by the bible interpreting itself, unless you mean that it is sufficiently susceptible to differing interpretations that its meaning shifts with social and historical contexts. If that's the case, I couldn't agree more. That is manifestly clear as we look at the different interpretations espoused by religious leaders just over the last, say, two hundred years.

And as you say, the difficulty for those of us who are predisposed to seek evidence and authority to support simple assertions of apparent absurdities as fact, is that the book is supposed to contain eternal truths. And yet those "eternal" truths can be ammended, disregarded, interpreted, added to, or massaged into pretty much anything a believer wants. For somebody seeking a solid foundation upon which to grapple with the issues, there is no solid footing...the ground keeps shifting, the goalposts keep moving.

Add to all of this the observation that I, at least, see no need to add a god to the mix to answer the hard questions. It makes one wonder what the believers actually see as the foundation of their beliefs. I've never had a genuine answer to that question that couldn't be reduced to something like, "because it feels right to me."

What I had in mind, Kel, was that the bible was written over a period of several centuries, and that the later parts include interpretations and reinterpretations of earlier parts. The relating of NT events to obscure OT texts as "prophecies" is a noteworthy example. And of course the process continues into the present day.

Noggin

I see what you mean, Nog.

But I can't quite get on board with the idea that the process continues until today. The church for a good long time has decreed that the the bible is fixed...there are no new additions to serve as interpretations of previous interpretations. I see the process you describe as having come to an end by way of fiat.

Ironically, that's where I see the bible as having lost any of its real power. By becoming fixed and allowing for no more reinterpretations, the book becomes increasingly irrelevant.

Unless new parts are added to the bible thereby validating earlier parts, the whole thing becomes a time capsule. As a book of no fixed meaning but subject to purely personal interpretations of something with virtually no relevance to the world we live in, it becomes, as I have said before, something like a Rorschach test. One can take a stab at identifying a person's individual neuroses by the interpretation of the bible he/she comes up with.

Extremely interesting TRiG! The odd thing is, that there are postings by me, that I have little or no memory of...

Vicky

<<In terms of the New Testament, I'd be interested to hear from any Christian, who it was who decided that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John,

<< The main point I'm making however is that he went to a museum in Egypt to view the 'Thomas' gospel. This gospel contains the teachings of Christ, but makes no mention of Jesus' miracles, and virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus after *dying* on the cross. It is absolutely authenticated as genuine. And indeed the theologian was actually very excited to hold it in his hands.

So why is this gospel not in the NT? Could it just be because it would have been somewhat inconvenient for those who wished to spread and promulgate the story of Jesus/godhead, with which we are all so familiar from the 'official' selected gospels?>>

Thomas is a 'sayings gospel', and as far as I know, has no narration in it at all. A lot of what's in Thomas, is in the others. (I used to have a copy of it, or maybe it came from the library, it's one of the things I read in the 90s, and again AFAIK, it has a 'gnostic' bent, or was edited by them, some sections display that quite clearly, with a bias against physical life, the body and consequently, women.)

VL

Hi Andrew ,

Aah yes, the famous Sermon on the Mount - oft-quoted by Christians as an example of the morality Jesus taught. However, most only refer to the first 16 verses of Mathew Chapter 5, they rarely quote the latter parts...

Mathew, Chapter 5

5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

* Two verses which essentially validate all the OT laws and teachings.

5:21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

* So by just being angry with your 'brother' you can be assured of hell fire - this is very OT. I know he is warning about family harmony, but an eternity of torment for being annoyed with a sibling?

5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

* This means every man on the planet is doomed. Hands up any man here who has not looked upon a woman thus at least once in his life, this year, this week, today?

5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

* What is this obsession with adultery in the OT and NT? And remember the punishment in the OT (which Jesus validates in 5:17-5:18). A quick question on present Catholic Church law Andrew - can people get divorces now and for what cause (other than for 'fornication')?

5:33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
5:34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
5:35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.

* Now I love this bit of Jesus' Morality. Essentially no Christian can take any oath, whether it be in court, or an oath of office. He doesn't like any one of his followers to make public promises. Is this a good thing to teach people?

* And onto some more classic, yet seldom-quoted, morality from the tongue of Jesus in Mathew:

10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

* So much for honour thy father and mother... hang on did he also not say this:

15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

* In other words Jesus intends to set the child against the parent and then punish them for this - very nice...

I could go on ad infinitum, ad nauseam, but I will leave it here in the words of Mathew - often thought to be the most reliable gospel.

Essentially my point is that Jesus has no more right to be held up as a moral example than his genocidal 'father'. His teachings, even within just one gospel, are often contradictory and questionable in terms of morals or ethics.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

<> Vicky

And so, when an interpretive tradition achieved a position of power because it suited Constantine, rival interpretations were marginalised.

But although the bible became fixed at that point, interpretation of it did not stop. It simply carried on elsewhere, responding to social and political changes.

Noggin

I have to agree with Math's point here.

I, for one, am really sick and tired of hearing apologists and appeasers repeating inanities like, "I'm not really a Christian, but the teachings of Jesus are a good moral guide..."

In truth, the teachings of Jesus are dangerously vicious, ethnocentric, and elitist.

Their only virtue is the inconsistency which makes them impossible to follow in real life.

Hi Kel ,

One of the things that 'amuse' me is the emphasis on being meek and compliant in the face of authority or emnity. Sounds like Constantine chose his scholars well, as one of his objectives was obviously a religion that could be used to create effective social control.

All 'warrior' faiths were considered dangerous to social order and were ruthlessly exterminated. Quite ironic seeing Christianity's later use as a motivator for war and genocide on behalf of the state.

If you like my point of view Kel you should look up the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, which delves into such subjects in amazing detail.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

<>

Which is why Quakers won't take oaths, and why I won't either (I've testified in court only once, but the principle applies.)
I don't know about courts in other countries but the law in NZ allows people to "affirm", an option usually used by anti-theists who don't want to swear by a God they don't believe in. (Yes, I do mean anti-theists - I am distinguishing them from atheists who aren't usually bothered.)

It's simply a matter that if someone is truthful, then they really have no need to swear blood-curdling oaths - they're going to be truthful anyway!

(As an aside a lawyer told me once, that judges don't like people affirming, they assume it means the person is going to lie, and therefore won't bind themselves by an oath, but IMO, those judges just don't get it.)
Vicky

Well, that addresses ONE of the quotes for the "good" book.

Can we assume that you agree and comply with all the other biblical injunctions? Or just that one? Some of them? Just the ones that suit you?

How do you decide?

A second point, if I may....

<>

If it's "simply" a matter of oaths being redundant to one's truthfulness, why is it necessary to rule them out?

An oath, it seems to most people, is not to constrain a person to tell the truth, but rather to assure others that you will be truthful. Surely one can't expect everyone to know without evidence that you are always completely truthful.

Oh yeah...belief without evidence = faith.

To follow that logic, if someone refuses to swear an oath to tell the truth, that means that the person always tells the truth and therefore must be telling the truth, because they say so. That makes sense.

<>

The spiritual reason for not swearing oaths is above, in the Bible verses Math has quoted, but of course, that's something that not everyone accepts.

In previous, less cynical times, the stricture against oaths was well known, and didn't require explanation. The more dictatorial a regime, the more likely oaths were to be required and affirmation to not be allowed, and now we have the present, where, as my lawyer told me, judges automatically assume (because they don't even know about the religious proscription of oaths) that those who affirm are those who intend to lie, and want to avoid a prosecution for perjury. I suppose also, that judges (even in family court, or maybe especially there) are used to seeing the worst of human nature...

Vicky

<<...my lawyer told me, judges automatically assume (because they don't even know about the religious proscription of oaths) that those who affirm are those who intend to lie, and want to avoid a prosecution for perjury...>>


I'm curious. Is that ALL judges? Or is it just the Christian judges who demonstrate that kind of prejudice? You know that would be an impeachable offense in NZ or any other commonwealth country, don't you?

And is it all judges who have such spotty educations, including in religious proscriptions (a subject that is taught in law school)?

In Canada (probably not too diferent from New Zealand) 76% of sitting judges describe themselves as "atheist" or "agnostic".(Law Society of BC. stats, 2006) Does your lawyer claim that even those are predisposed to assume that defendants who choose to make an affirmation rather than swear an oath to a god they don't believe in are liars?

I just called one friend who is a judge on the bench of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. He says that he makes a presumption that EVERYONE who appears before him will tell the truth.

He also said that he has less repect for someone who will swear an oath that means nothing to him than someone who refuses and instead chooses to affirm. Sample of 1... Results: 100%

And, incidentally, lying under affirmation OR oath is perjury. I'm surprised that your lawyer acquaintance wasn't aware of that, Stanley. Clearly neither intellectual nor ethical standards are very demanding of officers of the court in NZ.

Or maybe that was just a wee little fib about your lawyer saying that? Maybe that was just a presumption of yours?

That's an odd one. There have been times when oaths were an absolutely fundamental part of social structure in Christian Europe - I wonder how they dealt with it.

And incidentally I can't see why you have to be so snide about affirmation. Oaths are a serious thing for some of us, and to begin one with the deceit of swearing on a book you think is untrue seems wrong.

In law, the reason we make an oath is twofold:
1. To make it clear that what we then state in evidence is declared as being truth.
2. To bring home to the witness that theya re expected to tell the truth.

In both cases this then implies that the witness understands that they are expected to tell the truth and that they have no excuse for perjury.

Beyond this... To many people, especially in the pagan community, the taking of an oath is a sacred thing. To break an oath is to offend both the Gods and the community and is considered one of the most serious crimes - on a par with rape and murder.

An oathbreaker is then marked forever as such. All respect and honour is lost, kinship forsworn, debts to the oathbreaker levelled, land and property forfeited to the community.

As you can see perjury carried such a price that few would risk it.

These days lies and deceit are commonplace and the rewards far outweigh the risks. Liars are even feted - such as Jeffrey Archer, Tony Blair and GWB.

This is why I do not trust Christians. Any religion that states as a clear tenet that you must not give your oath has no honour.

Blessings,
Matholwch .