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

'And as you've pointed out, most prisons and all the armed forces do precisely that.' (Just a good example, nothing personal - yet!)

OK. I am going to SHOUT this one:

WHERE IS THE HARD /EVIDENCE/ THAT RELIGIOUS PRISIONERS GET SPECIAL TREATMENT?!?

Phew... calm down... deep breaths... recently, huge portions of this thread have been wrote on what appears, as far as I can see, to be an intuition, with maybe a fragment of circumstantial, subjective and anecdotal evidence. What? WHAT!?! This is not science! This is corruption! It is a downright mean, poorly thought-out attempt to undermine a significant majority of the earth's population. There is not a shred of science to demonstrate that single huge assumption, and if there is it certainly hasn't been presented. If you miraculously possess some form of brilliant insight (evidence?) that I am lacking (no jokes, please), then put your cards on the table for us all to see. And admit that you probably didn't know about it beforehand. (If you say you did, you're a liar or tight-fisted. Nyah! )

Hoovooloo (if this is you, keep reading, even if it gets bad) made an excellent point. You can't draw a conclusion from a correlation. After doing two years of psychology, the statement rolls off the tongue like a well-oiled bead (assuming that you are in the middle of reverse peristalsis). I thank him for this. However, I felt violated after reading his post. His disgusting comparison of me, my church, my friends and my family to a load of people who stand on buckets and shout out 'wibble', his apparent lack of respect for me and many others - good people - incited me to rage. Pointing and mouthing meaningless songs? WHO ON EARTH DOES HE THINK HE IS? How dare he! That perverse, cruel and overstated so-called 'scientist'!

I was going to point all this out. I was going to make witty jibes, jibes so subtle that they made it obvious that the person I was jibing was an absolute idiot but that I was just too nice to say it. But then... I remembered. I remembered times that I had faced Hoovooloo before, times when he had pointed out quite clearly (if somewhat 'directly' - significant quotes) that I was completely wrong, that he had never said such things, and had pointed out what he really had said. And so, reluctantly (I was going to start doing this when I got to the 'I thank him for this), I went back and looked, just to check that he had said exactly what I was going to say he did.

And I found it: nothing.

Absolutely nothing.

Hoovooloo was perfectly right.

Here's my take: He said, simply, that prision gives preferential treatment to people professing a particular religious adherence. I take exception to this because I see no proper evidence - read what I wrote above. He then said that atheists aren't stupid. He never said that relious people were supid, just that all atheists aren't. I saw this wrongly, because Hoovooloo has a most unfortunate knack of implying things that he never said, and I hope that in this case it was not intended. Continue: he calls it meaningless nonsense. He doesn't mean 'religion', just what's happening in the prision - people getting told to say stuff that he sees as having no meaning. And he is perfectly truthful: to him, belief in a God (or gods) is meaningless, it is not rational. I disagree with the former, but he is right that it is not rational - it is an aspect of faith. Meaningless, no; it means something to the believer. But to an ratinalist, saying that one believes in God is like saying you believe in Ste's 'gravitationalism': it is simply adding another element to replace a theory that explains much of the evidence and is expected to explain the rest soon (indeed, is explaining more every day) . God, to the RATIONALIST, is meaningless.

Notice that he has never said that religious people are irrational, but simply that they have a belief that does not fit into the rational framework that scientists are developing. And I have no problem admitting that faith is not guided my logic, or that my faith is irrational. Nevertheless, I am going to believe it, and you aren't really changing my opinion. I wish that other people would take the same view as I would, but they often won't. I accept this also. (Creationism is simply an attempt to fit in reality with religious views - scientists may be wrong about evolution, but creationism is still an irrational belief.)

And so, I realised Hoovooloo's point. 'I believe in God' has no more meaning than 'wibble'. He is right. I apply meaning to it; atheists apply meaning to it; rationalists don't. They see no meaning to anything that falls outwith their own rational framework. (Read carefully - I am not being derrogatory!) And now I find myself in a position to understand what Hoovooloo was saying. He said that the task was pointless, and that since there is no meaning to it there is no implicit dishonesty.

Note: I distinguish between rationalists and atheists because the latter believe that there is no God/are no gods, while the former simply dismiss the question as meaningless due to lack of evidence. Actually, I'm not sure I'm explaining right. But when I work out precisely what the distinction is, I'll get back to you,

Hoovooloo, I thank you for what is an excellent, if somewhat loaded, point. Did you mean any of the things I thought you did? Do you think less of religious people for being religious? I'm actually not sure (answer?), but it remains that you said exactly what you mean.

I think other people may make the same mistakes as I did. Why did I write this? Just in case, and because I felt that somehow it was important that I did. It also clears up a lot of things I found confusing, and if it helps you, good!

But all the above does not excuse the lack of evidence for the initial proposition! Present it if it exists! 'And as you've pointed out, most prisons and all the armed forces do precisely that.' When did he say that? ALL the armed forces? and are you sure he said ANYTHING significant about prisions? I don't think he said ANYTHING to support this conclusion.

And secondly: 'It seems that they need something to sustain them' (or something like that, I can't be bothered finding it). Again, the conclusion is not supported by the facts. I think it is more likely that people with little religious conviction /become/ because they see nothing wrong with hoarding their money while millions around them starve. (Did you konw that the 225 richest people on the planet have more money than the 2.5 billion poorest? I didn't, but I do now and boy, do I care!) You see, you just decided that lack of money was the cause, rather than an effect - both conclusions are supported by the evidence you gave me. Don't feel too bad, my classmates and I in the psychology department would often jump to some pretty, uh, /unjustified/ conclusions in order to support theories that were spitefully turning (notwithstanding effort on our parts) into complete dead-ends. I like to think that I don't do this much any more (and that if I do I acknowledge it), but I still lapse into laziness...

Speaking of which, Hoovooloo's theory had the same problem. And he's pretty brilliant (as I'm realising over and over again), so it's nothing to be ashamed of!

Final point: it must still be said that absolute rationalism ascribes ethics - or anything else, for that matter - any intrinsic value. Any rationalist who says he values harmony or justice or even human life is lying (as a matter of fact, I don't think a rationalist would ever get out of bed in the morning, since it is irrational for them to bother - being unimportant, as they are - so I suspect the only living rationalists are braindead), and you are no longer a rationalist if you subscribe to any of these values. You are something else - still rational, but with a little island of irrationaliy that makes you go up and get breakfast every day.

I might give up trying to read the backlog and just try occasionally popping up with bits of info/contentions that I have resurfaced for a bit of mouth-to-mouth. Any objections?

- Jordan (I love you all really! )

^...but to a *rationalist*, saying...

Good summary! (Tho' each has more to it, of course, which is where all the conflict comes in.)But that's a basis we can all agree on, nicht war?

>It should therefore come as no surprise to see an atheist enter a prison - an institution which, statistically, is most likely to be run and staffed by religious right-wingers - and note that those who profess a faith receive certain privileges.<

>It should further come as no surprise to find said atheists having no ethical problem whatsoever in pretending to be religious for as long as it gets them extra privileges. As far as the intelligent atheist is concerned, all he has to do is mouth empty platitudes in return for more books, time out of his cell for worship, and other perks of prison life not available to atheists. I'm therefore more surprised at what I regard as the relatively HIGH level of atheism in US prisons, and can only assume that those people are trying to make some sort of point.<

>It would be very interesting to see how many people would profess religions in prison if there was no material advantage whatever in doing so. I suspect that you'd find rather more than 10% of people in prison would say "atheist" if they didn't think saying "Catholic" was going to get them anywhere.<
My comment is that the impression I get of the USA is that being Catholic gets you nowhere fast! Protestant is the way to go - don't the Klan attack Catholics too

Hoovooloo, your remarks about atheists and prisons are quite startling! I am assuming that apply only to American prisons and American society generally, which to us on the outside, looks often like a nightmare of claustrophobic intolerance, violence and religious aggro! (I'm thinking of an episode of 'The Lone Gunmen' TV show we saw last night, 'Maximum Byers'. Creepy to the max! As an aside, why is there no American TV show or film with the cojones to oppose capital punishment!?

>The entire problem wouldn't exist if the real dishonesty was corrected - the extra privilege shouldn't be available in the first place - certainly not in connection with something so abstract and fluid as religious preference.<

Excuse me, but has it been established that the 'benefit' (the extra privileges for being 'Christian') *are* actually available?

Hi Hoo .

At last, at bloody last. I've only waited 600+ posts for someone to try and crack that nut. Good, let's get to it shall we?

The simple stuff: Crossbow analogy.
Doesn't work because of a fatal flaw underpinning the history of the banning of crossbows. The people who tried to ban crossbows were the rich and powerful, also those most likely to cynically use religion as a method of social control. They did this because they were the intended targets, crossbows treating chainmail and plate armour like cardboard. The modern successors to this are the rich and powerful of the West trying to prevent poor nations having any weapons that could actually reach over oceans and hurt them, and thus becoming immune to the West's socio-economic pressures.

The hard stuff:
Strangely I agree with a lot of what you say. Especially the bit about leaders ignoring scripture when making real world decisions. The laws of a gang of ancient, murderous, nomadic hebrews have little to offer the world of realpolitik. Or do they? More on this later.....

Your response to my question "How a lack of belief in the divine nature of being makes you more advanced or better able to govern the future?" was not up to your usual standard. Especially in light of your intimation that my spiritual beliefs do make me less rational and less intelligent than atheists or rationalists.

I'm afraid that to believe that you can define morality and ethics simply by pragmatism would have us living in the non-religious version of the Saudi State (Singapore comes to mind), or Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. In the instance of Prison I'm pretty sure that a good rationalist reduction of that problem and its associated problem of re-offending would lead us to a more final solution to crime and criminals.

Morals and ethics have so much more to define than simple survivial and getting-along issues.

I find it depressing that the majority of rationalists I meet (and no I don't know you well enough yet Hoovooloo to categorise you yet) are also blinkered accepters of 'Humans are the new Gods' and 'Science cannot be wrong' camps. Which is why I find that time and again the main opposition to the immoral or unethical (sorry - 'pragmatic') development and use of science lies in the religious and spiritual camps. We are not Luddites, but maybe we look with wider, less innocent eyes at what the scientists do.

For instance there are a large and vociferous band of geneticists who want the unfettering of all human genetic research and application. They want to be able to find and filter out the human gene for aggression, as well as sell cosmetic genetic services. Tell me if I'm wrong but that smacks of Eugenics to me.

Isn't it strange that the only British MP's who have attacked this, and the ever-compliant Parliament Committee on this, are those with a professed religious belief. The rationalist chair of that committee has even refused to hear any more arguments in his chamber from those declaring it immoral and unethical, if their standpoint is religious.

The same response awaits myself and my friends who ask that the widespread planting of GM crops be halted until we can really be sure of their effect on the local ecologies into which they are thrust.

I'm sorry, but I don't see there being a good reason for rationalism to rule alone. It is unfortunate but the number of those that you could call atheist or rationalist, that have actually spent even a modicum of time exploring their attitudes to morals and ethics (as you obviously have) are miniscule. Far less even than the readers of Teen Witch .

"Millions continue to starve in spite of their faith. Billions more owe their life to the technology created by people who didn't depend on prayer".

Oh come on Hoovooloo, you can do better than this. Millions starve because it suits the economics of the West. Billions are alive because of the unfettered use of science to eliminate all natural population controls.

Of the Four Horsemen, so necessary for true evolution of the species, Pestilence is on its knees, Famine has been battered about for two hundred years but it still in the fight (but only because of dodgy referee's decisions), War has been chained into service of the rich, and Death can see immortality on the geneticists to-do lists.

The planet is being raped for short-term profit by a few powerful men who have no spiritual beliefs whatsoever. Nothing to make them think again about what they do.

Religious conviction amongst the rich and powerful in the 19th Century, was the only thing that brought us back from the brink of social disaster. God-fearing men and women abolished the slave trade (by major nations at least), introduced free hospitals, supported the poor and needy, patronised the arts and sciences, introduced emancipation of the common man (though not the common woman), built sanitation into cities and housed the workers, eliminated child labour and laid the foundations for free schooling and health care at point of use.

Since the First World War, the triumph of rationalism and the defeat of the Abrahamic religions, has released the rich from these spiritual or moral obligations. And what a triumph that has been.

What now of your Brave New World rationalist? Tell me that?

Blessings,
Matholwch, proud to be off with the faeries /|\.

Jordan first, Matholwch later....

"WHERE IS THE HARD /EVIDENCE/ THAT RELIGIOUS PRISIONERS GET SPECIAL TREATMENT?!?"

The prison service is legally required to give religious prisoners the time, freedom and facilities to pursue their faith. Examples of special privileges would include access to religious scripture (as an atheist there's no book that the prison service is legally required to provide me with), exemption from work on the sabbath, special foods (e.g. kosher/halal) and many others.

"intuition, with maybe a fragment of circumstantial, subjective and anecdotal evidence."

Sorry if you think that. I thought it was common knowledge.

"Hoovooloo was perfectly right."



"I see no proper evidence"

As I say, it's a standard legal requirement. I assumed that knowledge of it was as common as, say, the knowledge that Sikhs are permitted to ride motorcycles without a regulation helmet if they're wearing a turban. (Not sure if that ONLY applies to Sikhs, mind you... I assume I'd be OK if I was wearing a turban. Mind you, have YOU ever seen a Sikh on a motorbike?)

"He never said that relious people were supid, just that all atheists aren't."

And I didn't mean religious people are stupid. I DID mean that atheists in prison who don't pretend to be religious to get the extra benefits must be either stupid or trying to make some sort of point.

"I saw this wrongly, because Hoovooloo has a most unfortunate knack of implying things that he never said"

Or possibly other people have an unfortunate knack of reading things into what I write which are not there. It's very interesting to see someone who's religious get annoyed when I say "atheists are not stupid", ESPECIALLY when I do so in a context which is in no way implying anything negative about religion. The context was the injustice of giving a group of prisoners benefits and witholding those benefits from others. The implication was negativity about prisons. I made no comment whatever about religion per se. Interest to see that that was inferred, and by whom...

"...meaningless nonsense. He doesn't mean 'religion'"

Actually, in that case, I *did* mean religion, but specifically meant that TO AN ATHEIST(humanist, rationalist, whatever) it is.

"Meaningless, no; it means something to the believer."

And I have no problem with that. But we were't talking about believers...

"Notice that he has never said that religious people are irrational, but simply that they have a belief that does not fit into the rational framework that scientists are developing. And I have no problem admitting that faith is not guided my logic, or that my faith is irrational."

Round of applause, please. Thank you, Jordan. We're definitely on the same page here.

"I wish that other people would take the same view as I would, but they often won't."

Note, I never try to "convert" people to rationalism. I limit myself to pointing out where their beliefs conflict with observed reality. (At least, I try to )

"..the task was pointless, and that since there is no meaning to it there is no implicit dishonesty."

Bang on!

"Hoovooloo, I thank you for what is an excellent, if somewhat loaded, point. Did you mean any of the things I thought you did? Do you think less of religious people for being religious?"

Not at all. Many people who are worthy of great respect are religious. Many people act in wonderful, selfless, highly creditable ways, and do so because of a religious belief. They see things in the universe which I do not. I do not think less of them for it. I've said this before - if you want to believe in the tooth fairy, I'm all for your right to believe in it, if it makes you a better person to be around. But if it makes you come round to my house with a pair of pliers, I'm probably going to have problems with your belief. Similarly, if people want to perform the (to me) pointless rituals of, say, Protestant communion, I see no reason why they shouldn't and won't disrespect them for doing so. If, on the other hand, they want to try to affect the scientific education of other people's children based on their beliefs, that's when it comes time to oppose them. It's not the belief/faith/religion I'd oppose - merely the attempt to foist it on others.

"...it remains that you said exactly what you mean."

Thank you for noticing. So few people do. I'm impressed.

"But all the above does not excuse the lack of evidence for the initial proposition! Present it if it exists!"

Um... what kind of evidence do you want? I know a couple of people who've been to prison, and rather more who've been in the armed forces. Would any of their tales be merely "anecdotal"? As I say, I thought the requirement of the government to provide special facilities for religious observance in prison and the armed forces was common knowledge. I'm not sure I can quote the specific statutes, but if you think it'll help I can try to look them up...

"When did he say that? ALL the armed forces?"

Well, what applies to one generally applies to all on such matters. Much the same criteria are applied to applicants joining any branch of the armed forces. Why else do they have joint recruitment offices?

"Speaking of which, Hoovooloo's theory had the same problem."

Sorry to appear dense, but which theory?

"Any rationalist who says he values harmony or justice or even human life is lying (as a matter of fact, I don't think a rationalist would ever get out of bed in the morning, since it is irrational for them to bother - being unimportant, as they are - so I suspect the only living rationalists are braindead)"

Hmm. I think you're confusing rationalism with practically suicidal nihilism. The nihilist attitude would be "ah, what's the point in getting out of bed, I'm only a speck of dust on a speck of dust in the uncaring universe". The rationalist attitude would be more like "right, another day, what am I going to *do*? I mean yes, I'm a speck on a speck and all that, but that doesn't GET me anywhere, does it?". The nihilist would deny the point of anything. The rationalist would just try to increase the sum of his happiness by any means possible, including increasing the happiness of others if possible or necessary, on the basis that there's really no *other* point to anything.

"You are something else - still rational, but with a little island of irrationaliy that makes you go up and get breakfast every day."

Getting breakfast is perfectly rational. I'd die if I didn't, and suicide is hardly a rational course, is it?

Thanks, btw, for the compliments, and thanks for doing what so few people do and actually READING what I wrote and THINKING about it.

How on earth do you get on with other Christians???

H.

Hello Jordan

That was quite a piece you put in there. I take it you believe in God. Good for you, as I find people who believe in God to be very judgemental. Does God not say judge not, does God not say love thy neighbour. does God not say, the greatest gift is to love. Calm down Jordan or you will give yourself a heart attack. Be happy.

I have stuff to say, but it is after 11 o'clock (pm) and I have a home to go to (at last! ) Expect something proper from me tomorrow. I'm exhausted.
And I'm more likely going to get a brain haemmorage than a heart attack - University isn't exactly physically challenging!

From the Lakhota (Sioux)

Wakan Tanka, Great Mystery,
teach me how to trust
my heart,
my mind,
my intuition,
my inner knowing,
the senses of my body,
the blessings of my spirit.
Teach me to trust these things
so that I may enter my Sacred Space
and love beyond my fear,
and thus Walk in Balance
with the passing of each glorious Sun.


Alji (Join The Guild of Wizards @ U197895)

Semaj, *does* God say judge not? It depends on the context. I think we (believers) are allowed, in fact in some contexts, required to judge, so that we don't just take everything in some all-inclusive whatever spins your wheel type of let it all hang out-ness (as *some* New Age people do.) Loving ones neighbour doesn't preclude being annoyed at what one perceives the neighbour to have said or done! (Jordan can put his own POV, I am not speaking for him, but that's my 2c worth..)
Being judgmental is not always a bad ting, is what I am trying to say. Not all actions and statements are of equal worth, or equally (peace)loving...

"Atheists have generally arrived at their belief through intelligent, rational thought."

Thus implying that atheists are intelligent, rational people.

Is it not also possible that intelligent, rational people commit less crimes, or that they are better at not getting caught?

Just goes to show that you can uses statistics to prove anything!

I read in the paper that some academics think the world is a computer simulation, because:

(1) A computer simulation wouldn't have to be 100% perfect, some weird stuff could happen on the quantum level. (And weierd stuff happens in quantum physics)... this could also explain ghosts, UFOs and other weird stuff.

(2) A society advanced enough to create simulated worlds that look real is likely to make shedloads of simulations, and it's highly unlikely that we're in the one true pre-sim universe.

(Ironically, it is at this point that they say "don't tell anyone, or they'll pull the plug"... and this was published in international journals and national newspapers!)


-----------

This is quite interesting, because it would mean that God is just a computer programmer.

Hi Slashback .
I doubt that we are a sim-universe. After all if we were I'd look like Hercules and Della would look like Xena. While she may look like that I can assure you that I do not .

Blessings,
Matholwch the .gif /|\.

Welcome Semaj .
As you will find out if you read back a bit, not all of us on the 'Yay God!' side of this debate are involved with the same Gods. So you might need to be a bit more specific when you say "I find people who believe in God to be very judgemental".

From my incomplete memory we have a few different flavours of Christian, a Buddhist(?), a Wiccan or two, a Wizard, and me - a Druid. Assuming you were meaning the Christians I have found the ones here to be fairly open-minded and laid back.

What's your take on the debate so far?

Blessings,
Matholwch the Apostate /|\.

Oh yes, on that note I'd like to say congratulations everyone, this is a most civilised discussion on a topic that historically hasn't really been known for being very civilised.

Della, how would you feel if someone said that your 18 year old daughter who had just died, had gone to hell and it was your fault?

This happened to my neighbors and the someone was an American Christian minister. Their daughter died because she had a hole in her heart and was on constant medication.

Now the quotes;

Luke 6:37
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

1 Corinthians 4:5
Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.

John 8:7
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

It is one thing to judge for yourself and another to judge others.


Alji (Join The Guild of Wizards @ U197895)

From Semaj .Muad'Dib Shadow of the mouse of the second moon:

"That was quite a piece you put in there. I take it you believe in God. Good for you, as I find people who believe in God to be very judgemental. Does God not say judge not, does God not say love thy neighbour. does God not say, the greatest gift is to love. Calm down Jordan or you will give yourself a heart attack. Be happy."

Define "judgemental". Is it judgemental to say that something is wrong? Even if that something actually *is* wrong? In that case every teacher who's ever put a cross against a piece of work is judgemental.

Define "love". Is it loving to pretend that something doesn't matter? Even if that thing *does* matter? Is it loving to say to your three-year old child, "well, you carry on playing with matches, getting your fingers burned isn't a real issue and even if it happens I don't care?" Of course not.

Okay, so, suppose that you believe that sin separates us from God and leads to eternity in hell. Is it really loving to pretend that that's not the case, to just say, "oh well, you carry on as you are"? I don't think it is. Sure, there are some approaches which are manifestly *bad* (adopting a morally superior position and implying - if not explicitly saying - "you're a filthy sinner and you're going to hell", when the truth is* we're *all* dirty sinners who'd *all* be going to hell were it not for Jesus), but I think the underlying reason is one of love. Although I could be wrong.

David.

*Caveat: Assuming that Christianity *is* true.

From Della the Cat womanMusic fanatic, science fiction practitioner: I love a sunny day!):

"Semaj, *does* God say judge not? It depends on the context. I think we (believers) are allowed, in fact in some contexts, required to judge, so that we don't just take everything in some all-inclusive whatever spins your wheel type of let it all hang out-ness (as *some* New Age people do.)"

Quite. In the words of 1 Thessalonians 5:21 - 22, "Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil."

Although as one American preacher has observed, the job of the Christian is to evangelise to the immoral, not to moralise to the unevangelised. I'm not entirely sure I agree, but it does make you wonder whether some people (Mary Whitehouse as an extreme example in the UK) get the balance *quite* right.

David.

Welcome to the thread David. You describe yourself as a Christian fundamentalist. Would you like to explain what you mean by fundamentalist?

Alji (Join The Guild of Wizards @ U197895)