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

Kaz, please see my remarks to Bod about Paul... I can't understand what people have against Paul!
Bod quotes James, about what 'real religion' constitutes, and I agree, it's solid. *But* who actually *does* meet those requirements? The modern equiavlent would be to pay taxes for widow's and orphans' benefits, support your local CYPFs, (Children, Young Persons and their Families branch of Social Welfare) etc, and I have never heard anyone yet who didn't complain bitterly about paying taxes to support slappers on single mother's benefits the lazy unemployed B*stards!
My point is, it's impossible to 'perform' as a good person without Divine assistance, the very assistance Paul talks about God offering freely, and for nix - just a commitment most people shy away from giving!

Hi Della, maybe I should go read it again, I'll let you know how it goes. Any chance you could save me a lot of time and tell me which books of the bible he wrote? I want to make sure I include all of them, is there more than 1? Its been a long time!

Hi Az
Back from my course!
Yes we agree.
Since human beings are a creative force, every God believed in exists. They/We make it exist for them/ourselves. We are that powerful! (although it's easy for us to consider we are powerless)Even Doors fish god had a small existance in the mind set of those who got hooked into it!
Everything they believe in is true ...for them for that moment in time and space.
We only 'decide' as a population what is delusional or not, by testing the majority opinion. Safe low risk option , herd instinct for survival. etc etc.
Some of us may be dismayed at the direction some of these created Gods take their believers and try to complain or 'rescue' them from certain perceived' harmful' religious inventions.
Extreme faith, unshakable belief creates God (s) and makes them exist in this quantum matrix we all experience.
the end result of all this experience is to discover that we are all the 'bits' of God, that when reformed to the whole, invents creation for our own pleasure, distress, fear, angst, love, well for all of lifes various profundities.

Myst,

"Just as illogical for that slug, or even you or I, to exist completly at random, one would think."

Just as illogical for that slug, or even you or I, or even God, to exist completly at random, one would think?

Bod

"You have a lot of faith in science, more than I have... As far as I know, physicists are no nearer than they were 30 years ago, to the T.O.E they are after!"

The proportion of physicists in the West who believe in God is higher than the proportion of the general population in the West who believe in God.

For biologists it's the other way around.

Bod

"God exists, and that He is my friend, just suits me fine, and is a great comfort in my life."

Comfort.

In my limited experience, many people who have seriously and open-mindedly considered different religious paths and chosen Christianity have done so for that reason. Not that reason alone, but that seems to be the factor which swings it.

Bod

Della,

Thanx for the Julian of Norwich link.

"They like Jesus as a nice hippie philosopher, who can be ignored when he says anything inconvenient (such as the bit about turning the other cheek, or the bit about divorce - I admit I don't like that bit myself, but tough)"

If you interpret JC's teaching on divorce in a context-dependent sort of way then it's not so problematic. Women had next to no rights in first century Palestine and divorce was frowned upon - so for a woman to be divorced (only men could initiate divorces, despite Luke's version of the teaching) would be for her to be thrown into a life of extreme hardship. Perhaps then the prohibition on divorce was necessary for protection. Also, as was typical of the Pharisees and Scribes of the time, there was all sorts of debate about what constituted just cause for divorce. Some important scholars thought that if a wife became less pretty then that was good enough! In that harsh environment something more watertight was needed.

I think perhaps what I have against "Paul" (meaning Paul and the writings attributed to him) is that:

1. It does command slaves to obey their masters, wives to obey their husbands and citizens to obey the state - thus contributing to the tools of imperialist oppression. This is not about commitment, it is about subservience.

2. "Paul" did give as a summary of ALL that people had to do "Abstain from fornication and the blood of strangled animals". That strikes me as an inappropriate summation of Christianity, being way off the mark. Yes, he did talk about other things at other times, but when people ask for a sumary of what they must do you can't get it wrong like that - it sets the development of the religion off in the wrong direction and has the potential to seriously undermine it. It's a rules-based approach, not principles-based. That's regression from the focus of Jesus' teaching, and misses the centrality of love (agape).

3. It seems to me that "Paul" doesn't ADD anything of value to Jesus teaching, therefore it serves only to dilute it.

Bod

Has anybody here studied the psychology behind imaginary friends? If so, please share?

Bod

Bod. Being a psychologist I recall one or two things about imaginary friends. It tends to be a 'good thing' associated with children of better than normal social skills etc. It helps the child to become capable of seeing things from other then just their own point of view. Of course, it doesn't usually persist beyond its usefulness.

There is plenty of material to be found. I Googled as follows to check the above:< "imaginary friends" psychology >

If you have a specific question or concern, I'll be glad to do a spot of research for you - only the sooner the better. I have committments to meet in a day or so.

Hmm.

The big G is just an adult imaginary friend, the function of which/who is to teach us how to get on better with the real world around us?

The gods of ancient Greece were stories that made it easier to remember and understand the movement of the stars, the change of the seasons, navigation etc...so its not such a silly concept.

Maybe as DNA suggested in a conversation with some great interlectuals there is an artificial God. When there is no hope a lot of people need someone to turn to i.e. a God. Maybe mothers told there sons during a war or famine about a great man who would come and save us. Stories evolve over time like (in my opinion) human beings. It seems that in my opinion God is not fact or fiction but a fact of fiction. Any comments to [email protected].

Artificial god?

I think god could be an alien which is playing with us, baby alien was given us as a toy and as he grows so his mind grows and maybe we can see the effect that is having. When we were a young race, we were easy to manipulate. However we are more advanced now and have communicated with other cultures. Obviously the alien developed different god and goddess figures for different parts of the world to starve off boredom, or there are more than one alien creature, each is a god of a specific religion.

I think they are losing control now, which is easily apparent in the world today. Bizarre theory? The more I think about it, the more it makes sense!

You make a fine point. But myself i still believe that God is just a product of our creativity. Like little children have imaginary freinds. 'If there is no answer make one up' that is in my opinion how this whole God thing started.

Researcher, you know you can change your nickname under the Preferences button? Didn't know if you knew, but it's there if you want it.

There are things in this world that can only be attributed to God. For instance, morality. We all share morals that would make no sense to attribute to instinct, as they would not ensure survival. Certainly, not everyone shares them, but that is perfectly natural, just like some people are born colourblind.

What morals do we *all* share but some of us dont at the same time.

If you were colour blind and have to pick berries to supplement your diet think how important it would be interms of your survival then.

Yes, of course but these could also be heridetry senses could they not? That have evolved with the human race over time.

Yes, of course but these could also be heridetry senses could they not? That have evolved with the human race over time.

Myst,

"We all share morals that would make no sense to attribute to instinct, as they would not ensure survival."

Examples please? I thought the core of your morality was love of your neighbour. This leads to co-operation rather than competition, which in evolutionary terms is superior in terms of HERD survival, even if not INDIVIDUAL survival. Have you read Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene"?

Besides, why should shared values indicate the existence of God, rather than the existence of a specific strand of DNA?

Bod

I'm going through an ethics class, so here's what I've found. Morals are beliefs that we hold true in our own minds. For example, to kill another human being, we all find wrong.

In nature, with man evolving and so on, such a belief should be unlikely to occur. If you are starving, and someone else has food and will not give any over, eliminating them to survive would be your only option. Survival of the fit.

The survival of the individual would have to come first with evolution, because for there to be a group, there first must be an individual. For nature to simply spit out a group-minded creature with no warning would make no sense. It would be kind to creatures that would take advantage of it, and it would suffer. Even today, we can see signs of men going back to natural reasoning, valuing themselves over others (Corp. CEOs).

Our morality is not natural. Yet it is there, that small voice inside that tells you what you know to be right and wrong. And we are the only things that have it, it seems.

Wolves, sharks, bees, termites and our closet relative species chimpanzees all live in social groups. This behaviour makes them better fitted to their enivironments and more likely to be sucessful in passing on their genes (the driving mechanism behind evolution by sucess of random mutations).

*Even today, we can see signs of men going back to natural reasoning, valuing themselves over others (Corp. CEOs).*
Natural Reasoning

Rich and powerful taking advantage of the poor and weak has always been around. Animals will tend to protect those they see as being from within their group and ignore or attack others. What is your point here?

*Our morality is not natural. Yet it is there, that small voice inside that tells you what you know to be right and wrong. And we are the only things that have it, it seems.*

You assert that the morality of humans is not natural without making much effort to find any natural roots for our behaviour patterns.

Im going to make a wild guess here but I think you believe they were given us by the big G and corrupted by lucifer. Do I win a prize?