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

Hi Math brother Celt
my ancient forbears were Picts, and only any good for living in burrows and tatooing their bodies *, but I'm in big huge agreement with your feelings about the eco structure.

* Oh and keeping the Romans out of Scotland and making them build big walls - presumably this was because they were supposed to be a race of small dark people and the Romans thought we wouldn't be able to get over a wall !

"Yes, let's build a wall across England, that'll keep the little b*****s out". Another scientific, ill thought out idea fails.
Like the tiny exclusion zone around GM crops !!

Hi there CoS. Some of us accept that it makes most sense to suppose that God caused the big bang. There's plenty about both of these in http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/kalam.htm that I mentioned a few posts ago. Rather hard going if your first language isn't English, but the introductory part alone is worth reading, and the conclusion.

In no specific order, hello to all
Toxx-downloaded it, read first bit, booked into clinic, read second para, decided times crossword in Coptic slightly easier, did Times crossword in Coptic, had long lie down. Will print it out and attempt it tomorrow-Wed.
Diversity-hello again, thanks for the face, I now have a menagerie of them somewhere on the machine-will that work? This ain't the work of college kids, this shows real intelligence, I sat by one today who couldn't spell CIA.
Math, hi-read you around but not on here recently. I think the word 'need' in the paras relating to belief is where I would go with it. Just as there is no real decision to breathe, I think we are born with a need to believe. I do not revere math or science as the new Gods (but I do know plenty who do) even that is an urge to justify in terms of something other than that which is perceived. I think that we feel generally that there must be so much more to this life as we are scratching the surface of science and other goofy stuff. I think our explanatory languages have changed to accommodate this and, generally because of this the world feels more secular-less spiritual. This is sad, and unfortunate but, and it is a big BUT, this does not neccessarily make the alternatives any more real. Not to me. My truth lurks somewhere within the two realms. I don't reject alternatives to science because they are too magical/spiritual and I do not embrace science(or reject it) because it explains stuff, or lacks spiritual dimensions. I respect, after a fashion, those that feel that they personally have been touched by something, I know several people who feel that they have received some form of devine truth, and yes, absolutely, they have become regarded as holy fools immediately following said mystic stuff occurring. I think that if I truly believed I would be happy in my belief, just as I am now happy in my own particular beliefs regardless of whatever goes on. I feel little need to talk about this normally-outside the space where somebody specifically asks you what you think, which I think took a while- an evangelical atheist if you will. Many too many times, and I do not mean any of the present company, spirituality takes on a sad kind of shop-bought Shirley McClaine feel that gives it a bad name. his kind of thing does genuine believers no favours.

Hasselfree- Love, well I can feel it, it seems to exist between people but where it exists and how it could be measured, no idea. Can it exist outside of the body? Can it resist simple physical methods to remove it- chemicals, behavioural therapies? probably not, evidence shows it cannot. Do you want it to exist? then it probably will, recent evidence in behavioural psychology shows it can be learned, much in the same way that smiling, whatever your mood leads to a swoosh of happy juice in the brain. Can it exist in nature? not us and bunnies but plants, rocks? I have no idea, corn would feel something approximate to love for the sun but does this show all nature is spiritually atuned or that our approximation of the feeling is just slightly removed from the basic chemical reaction a plant feels getting what it wants/needs. Or am I wrong on my methodology and results-does a spiritual love, an actual real depth of emotion burn within the corn, the cattle and the rock? I'd love to say that it is the case and I cannot, and would not start on about proof-the total absence of it.It's an interesting thing to consider. I know that I feel it but where, and why? Search me squire. Incidentally I went at it the way I did in my last post(ish) not from any direction from your good self-I just felt like taking it in that direction. I wasn't saying you had said or implied that it was proof of God.
Child of Saunola-Hi,Why do we need more strength? I have plenty of it, I have a deep love of life and a general affection for people in it. I neither need nor require God. Imagine it something like people acting amazed that you can live without, I don't know, the latest designer clothes. You can see what they mean, the clothes may look great but you have within you no real sense that you cannot live without them, and you've got clothes anyway, does that make any sense? You're wrong about Titanic though. Here endeth the stuff.

Hi Hasselfree .

Unfortunately you have fallen for the common misconception about Hadrian's Wall. It wasn't there to keep the Picts and Caledones out. It was never strongly enough manned to achieve that.

Rather its purpose was to alert the Romans to when the Picts and Caledones came south on a raid, and then prevent their easy escape with lots of loot such as livestock. Any fit Briton could scale the wall, but not if he was driving cows or a horses. And if he tried to dismantle any part of it the delay would allow the Romans at the nearest fort to deploy a few Cohorts and give them a good whuppin'.

The sheer presence of the wall acted as a deterrent to cattle raids as well as advertising the power of Rome. A bit like the Iron Curtain erected by the Russians in the 1950's. And like the Iron Curtain it was very effective and had relatively low maintenance costs, especially when put against the costs of completely pacifying or annihilating the Picts.

As a sideline the main forts quickly became trading posts and turned a tidy profit for both sides.

One of the most fascinating things about the Wall is the wealth of archaeology it has provided. In particular it has given us valuable insights into the nature of religious worship within the Empire. Temples, shrines, inscriptions and figurines have been found dedicated to a wide variety of deities. This shows that to the people of the period their gods and spiritual beliefs were an active part of their daily lives. Luckily due to the isolated nature of the wall and the communities along it, much of this evidence has survived the arrival of Christianity with its blanket vandalism of all previous faiths structures and articles.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

have read what others put to this conversation and thought i'd add my . god, if he or she exists is far more likely to get annoyed about people killing in his/her name, than if someone genuflects the wrong(!) way. probably.
personally, i just go round being kind to animals and people, unless provoked. it's one of those free will things.

oops. responded to wrong bit of conversation again. i swear i'll get the hang of this soon.

it just kind of gets put wherever. You learn to expect to have to join up the dots from other posts. I think that you're probably right about the Head Man(or Woman) though, although some of our more fundamental brethren still do the eye=eye bit in His Name.

Rain
I suppose if I was wanting any evidence of the existance of love it was this line from you

"I know that I feel it"
That's about as evidentual as most people feel about the existance of God too.

Math
I was being a bit ironic about the Picts being tiny people and not getting over the wall
Having walked along part of the wall I can appreciate it's antiquity, but my forebears probably didn't.

Hi everyone, especially CofS and Daraline; welcome.

Nice to see you back Math - "mmm... fruitcake.."

I consider myself a rationalist, but I never seem to quite match your description.

<..experience of the divine have tapped into a basic need of human consciousness...> I'd have said property rather than need; and given that a large number of people experience it in at least some measure I'd say that it was rational to accept it; rationality, or the lack of it, is to be gauged by what the people concerned feel it means to them and it's that meaning, rather than the truth/untruth of it (largely undemonstrable) that it should be judged by.

this we DO need; fortunately purposiveness is another basic property of the human mind; we simply wouldn't function without it; I personally feel no need of a transcendent purpose in the religious sense. And despite <..that it is not a random, one shot experience that ends in darkness.> I am quite content with my one life. If I had more than one I'd never do this life what I could put off until the next life.
Besides, it's not THAT random; we start off with plenty of information, both genetic and cultural, to give us a lead. We don't start from scratch exactly.

CofS Actually it takes the same; ultimately explanation fails; one can only go so far; there comes a point where asking why can add nothing further.

Noggin

Noggin. I think CoS is right. It's OK to believe in an eternal God who happens to be the kind of being that needs no explanation that isn't already provided by His description. It seems to me irrational to accept a sui generis event taking place for no reason 15 billion years ago. Why at that time, with those properties?

why is there a why...even a million to one chance happening WILL happen once in a million times?!? no? Who knows how long was spent in nothingness (esp as time didn't exist?!?)...chance happens...or something..

Hasselfree: If you were looking for evidence, and if that it can be felt by some is good enough for you on either the 'love' or 'God' question, then that's fine. Some people feel God others do not. Why debate? These things must exist because some people feel that they do. Although generally speaking the people present who do not report a particular effect are generally regarded as a better indicator of whether or not the effect is "real", with something as shrouded in mystery as Head Honcho, what is 'real' anyway? It's not as if we're going to prove anything, but still...

Hi Pixie,

I do agree with the post-anything happens and it just does. You get people who know someone who dies saying stuff like "He can't be dead, I spoke to him only this morning". I just want to point out basically that stuff happens, and pointing out when it DID happen and seeking some specific reason, or ,worse, that the arbitrariness of when makes it somehow less easy to believe in makes little sense.

If I was to say "My watch stopped today at 2.14 p.m. how could that possibly be? such an amazing coincidence; it stopping at that precise moment". It wouldn't make sense.

Fair enough, Pixie. However I'm talking about an impossible event: an event without a cause. That happens precisely zero times in as many as you like!

The thing is, raindog. A cause of death would have to be stated on the death certificate. I don't think 'uncaused' is permitted! So what you didn't originally know is explained. No such explanation is available for the 'big bang'.

Hi Toxx. We've probably argued the toss enough on this one, but it's a harmless amusement, so what the heck!


That'll be the bit of the "description" that says he's the sort of being that needs no further explanation, I presume?


Why at that time? makes little sense if time is regarded as a property of the universe. For the rest it seems equally irrational to believe in it's happening for no reason, and to believe in it's happening for a reason when the terms of that reason make no sense. It's not irrational, in my view, to accept that we don't really know what we're talking about at that point, although I know it's not a conclusion that appeals to you.

Raindog, Hass - It's okay to talk about love existing because people feel it, because love is the sort of thing that we take to exist in that sort of way. When you talk about God in the same way you at the very least run the risk of confusion, because so many people believe in an objectively (independently) existing God.

Noggin

hi Math

"They sought the truth and although some of their beliefs can be seen to have been fanciful now, then they were at the cutting edge of what we call science."

That is common to a lot of religions, though, isn't it? I'm kind of glad to see that someone beside me noticed it about their belief system, also

It is also nice, because it seems no matter how many different posts no matter how many different authors, the ones that believe in a god can usually give him the final option on anything at the last minute (God can do whatever he wants to) (whenever he wants to) (but may choose not to) and the science oriented are likely to say 'well, that is the way it is' and both groups seem happy with the outcome.
I guess when one shows up in the others group, that's when we get in trouble
diversity

>>For instance - Evolution. An anathema to the Christian Churches, common sense to most Druids.<<
Not so, Matholwch! I am sure you know that evolution is considered perfectly acceptable by the Catholic church, the Anglican and many other Protestant churches. I don't care what they said 500 or even 100 years ago, it's now I am talking about, and if you meant pre-20th century, you didn't say so! (I am anticipating.)
I get tired of having to stress this to non-believers who think all Christians are anti-evolution, anti-science know-nothings!
You are not a non-believer (although your god(s) are not 'Abrahamic',that's not what I am saying.

Toxxin, I can't read that yet! Problems at 'school'... But I look forward to it. Thanks!