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

Hi Math!

"You are right though we do have our full range of human problems, but the basic premises that support both our paths do mean we regard the world and power from a quite different perspective."

Indeed. I was amused by Decker's reference, on this board, to either Christians or 'non-believers', as though anyone who was not Christian automatically believed in nothing. As you know, our beliefs are every bit as strong, and, on the whole, more reasoned out, than those of the average (and I am using that word with precision) Christian. In my experience, most christians have little sense of taking personal responsibility for their actions. They either wish to know what 'God's will' is (or the Church's), and do that regardless of personal discernment, or else blame the devil for everything that goes wrong. After all, as long as they follow God's will, the outcome, however undesirable, cannot be their fault, can it?

"For a start we focus on the world now, not the one to come. It occurs to me that the Abrahamic religions owe a lot to the Egyptian obsession with death and the afterlife, but that's another story."

This may creep into Christianity via Judaism and the time the hebrews spent in Egypt. But no doubt you are familiar with that theory!

Higgy - At least the way I've been taught language, the soul is the way that those who believe it define individuality, and it cannot be duplicated, and the individuality of the soul cannot be duplicated (perhaps, although the experiment does not allow the viewer to know the coordinates or history of each version, the sould would automatically contain that data); and also, yes, I'd imagine that if there was a possible way for the universe to diffrentiate them, then it would do so, ie, the soul.
*Any* answer ends the discussion, since it is mostly a matter of individual preference. If we have a soul, well, there we go; if we don't, well, that's the answer, then.
"I would question the assumption..." the point is that the two bodies AREN'T identical; one is very clearly a copy.

Mal, precisely! It isn't obvious from examining the living bodies, but it is obvious from the actual hisory. That will be so even if the original is annihilated. I don't want it doing to me thank you. I'd rather walk!

I could only bring up the point now, in relation to the soul, because the point of the experiment is that *you* don't know yourself which one is where and which one has which history.
As long as no one comes along now and says "Ah, but what if they SHARED historys?"...

The soul can't be used for any purpose of identification unless you can empirically demonstrate what role it plays, because unless you can differentiate the actions of the soul from the actions of the embodied mind and brain you don't *have* an extra observable.

The soul is ineffable; it can't be known as it is in itself. Ring any bells?

Noggin

>>When I was young my dad told me sitting too near the telly is bad for the eyes. I believed it then and still do, despite having nothing to prove it and have never bothered to find out. I accept this as fact and is just another example of the faith and trust I have in my dad and the resulting belief.<<
I have always believed that, and tell my kids not to sit so close... A few years back, in about 1998, heaps of children in the USA had epileptic fits whilst watching 'Pokemon', the episode with the 'vaccine bomb'. This was because American kids sit very close, and there wasn't a problem in other countries. (In NZ we do whatever the Americans do, except that we don't sit inside a metre of TV screens! TV here nevertheless cancelled the 'vaccine bomb' episode, on the mistaken assumption this *is* America!)

Ah, Pascal's Wager! (Blaise Pascal was a mathematician and theologian of (I think) the 17th century.))
It's a cute argument.

>>,or maybe let Him find us if He exists?<<
I believe God *does* exist, and does actually look to 'find' us. Many of us say 'go away' however...

>>The scientific community is professionally atheist. Individual scientists may privately believe whatever they choose of course and for the same reasons that lawyers, estate agents and bank clerks do. As a private individual a scientist is no longer 'in scientific circles' however - he is in social circles instead. On that basis I am inclined to support the - unsubstantiated - premise: "but rest assured that in scientific circles (at least in Britain) atheism is the norm."<<
Fathom, hi! First, what is with the "the scientist ... he"? Generic he, in this day and age?
Second, did you see Toxxin's link about Polkinghorne?
Third, of course science as a discipline has nothing to say about God, but door claimed that the *whole enterprise* was atheistic!

Right on Jordan! (and write on!) Excellent reply to the arrogant assumptions made.

Somehow, I feel Pascal's wager would offend God's sense of integrity. It certainly offends mine.

Noggin

Yes, I agree, Noggin, which is why I called it a 'cute' argument - there's always seemed to be something childish or childlike about it. It's not very integral.
(Digression - my sister Trina always said that there should be an adjective to describe someone with integrity. Integral obviously isn't it. Doesn't anyone know what is?)

maybe we're just never supposed to know either way!!! Maybe god is trying to temppt us to suicide to c whether or not we'll meet him.. Anyway I've been told Cats and dogs don't have souls.. If my dog ain't getting in I'm not going either

Hi Fathom!

I think a synthesis of our positions would bring us closer to the truth. My argument is that scientists seldom have the need to talk about the supernatural, that such is the suspicion in the scientific community that such articles are likely to be dismissed out of hand, that so few scientists are religious that there are few willing to give air to religious arguments, and that thus we can deduce that some scientists are not 'professionally atheist.'

Your counter-arguments are thus: scientists are unlikely to explore theistic explanations because they would seem unusual and unproductive, that such arguments are unscientific and unverifiable, that even among the small population of scientists there are few willing to write from a theistic perspective and that moat arguments about spirituality do not cite 'God' as a plausible hypothesis.

The conclusion is obvious: some religious scientists choose to remain professionally atheist, whilst others have less qualms about publishing supernatural origins. We can't tell which is in the majority because the very reasons interpreted above make the case dubious, but we can agree on that at least? To say any more would be... tricky, at the least, and I imagine we're both willing to meet at the middle?

- Jordan

'If my dog ain't getting in I'm not going either.'

I'm going wherever the AppleMacs go. And if the souless machinations of Billgatus of Borg get in, I'm staying at the pearly gates to talk to St. Pete.

- Jordan

Thanks Della, though I suspect you would have argued equally well.

- Jordan

'I'm not sure that those examples violate spatio-temporal continuity.'

They violate it by removing your atoms to another place and time.

'Do my atoms remain connected while going through this wormhole thing?'

That hardly matters, surely. If I disconnect a part of you and reconnect you precisely, you're hardly going to change, are you?

'I suspect that the really necessary condition is causation by the person of the future person.'

I'm not sure I really understand that statement, but isn't that just another way of saying 'temporal continuity?'

Furthermore, when you speak of causation, the copy's present state is just as much a 'causal result' of the original's past as the state of the original itself. Think about it.

If you deny this, and say that the necessary condition is causation, you are once more begging the question, albeit with a different premise. For that matter, I can't think of a single argument not based on imperfection of copying (e.g. the non-existence of a soul) which has not been carefully demonstrated false and does not beg the question.

Basically, if there is no imperfection in the copying process, we have no way of explaining why the original is the real person without defining the original, a priori, as the only real article - arguments which centre not on the present mental state of someone or their sense of 'me-ness,' but on their primacy and 'continuity' - a vague principle which in no way contributes to their immediate mental condition. If you argue that the original is the real article because knowledge of originality makes it obvious - or the conditions of originality change his future - we have to ask what would happen if we swapped the original and the copy without their knowledge, or how potential future bears, in any way, on someone's immediate self when it does not explicitly or predictably affect them.

Is there some fundamental point I am still missing? What will it take to satisfy you that the copy and the original are, in fact, the same person at the moment of duplication/transportation?

- Jordan

I also disagree. And the fact that you disagree strengthens the argument that belief in God is not something one has because of threats of damnation or promises of salvation.

Personally, Math is a pretty astute individual, but in this case I think he has a picture of Christians which is not entirely accurate, and is shaped rather unfortunately by the more fundamentalist viewpoints.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Math, but I don't think Christianity entitles one to (a) abdication of responsibility; (b) discouraging a personal relationship with God, as opposed to one officiated by authority; or (c) belief merely through fear of the alternatives. In fact, I suspect anyone who does work thus is a pretty poor Christian.

Of course, I may have totally misrepresented your opinions, in which case I apologies unreservedly, and beg clarification of your main 'pet-hates' of the Christian faith.

- Jordan

Yes but what I want to know is.. Does my dog have a soul and will He let her in??

I'd say that, since it's alive and since most believers consider a soul to be a contingent condition for life, yes, your dog has a soul.

Also, in light of the fact that none of the books of the Bible are addressed at the canine population (excepting, perhaps, the book of Cain(ine), Epistle to the Spaniels, the Gospel of Butch and the Apocryphal 'Bel and the Sheepdog,' I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that dogs are good by default.

Unless he eats insects, which is gross and forbidden by Leviticus.

- Jordan