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

Noggin. That, as you rightly emphasise, is behaviour. Nobody desires them. Maybe it's because they have a stronger desire for heroin or whatever. Also irrational.

Whoever desires anything, desires it because it is good. Circular thought from one a them old Greeks.

toxx

I challenge anyone to define 'rational' in terms of its sense rather than reference, intension rather than extension etc.

...mosey...

Math

Not going to find an adaptation of the cat analogy for druidry?



Jez

<>

Um, I might try if I knew what that meant.

Seriously though - its 'sense' rather than reference?

Meanwhile, no one has yet tackled Noggin's challenge to define 'material universe'. Maybe because nobody wanted him to stop talking to them?

az

I can't say, RDO, what I thought when I was born, my memories go back only as far as when I was 3.
But note that I said when I was *four years old* I asked my parents for information about God. They were (then) not Christians, not believers at all. They would have taught me nothing, we had no family in NZ, we didn't have TV, and if we did have, I would have been left parked in front of it. So, I venture to suggest, that I well have been born theist, not agnostic!

That should say, of course, I "would *not* have been left parked in front of it." and that "I *may* well have been born theist...

Are you suggesting that you had no outside influence that could have put the ides of chritianiyt into your head. You didnt get Christmas presents?

one love

Thanks, Roadkill, for the clarifcation. (No, I didn't think it was a dig, in fact, it made me think quite a lot about that particular issue... )

Well, you've been theist since three at least. From birth, that's another thing altogether though.

Of course I got Christmas presents, but I was 3 or 4. I don't remember but I doubt that parents (non-believers, remember) sat me down and explained the story of Christmas to me and my sibs before giving presents.

Facts are that you lived in a christian dominated culture where peoles language and culture is suffused with biblical references, (it would take the patience of a saint, the strenght of samson and the wisdon of Solomon, God help us heavens above, you little angel, you naughty little devil, lets pray he remebered to switch the gas off.....)

Honestly I sit here somedays listening to kids singing about Jesus bringing them the water of life and wonder for their sanity when ten minutes latter after that indoctrination they are asked to digest the facts of the water cycle.

"Gurpriya, what makes water from the sea turn into clouds"?

"Jesus, miss"



one love

"But note that I said when I was *four years old* I asked my parents for information about God. They were (then) not Christians, not believers at all. They would have taught me nothing, we had no family in NZ, we didn't have TV, and if we did have, I would have been left parked in front of it. So, I venture to suggest, that I well have been born theist, not agnostic!"


Not really. Like all small children, you wantedexplanations for things. You lived in a society that assumes that there is one God that does Wonderful Things. You asked about "God", so you mush have been aware of the concept and probably knew that it was said to have made the world/control the world. You probably didn't know/understand Christianity as such when you were four (if you had you wouldn't have asked your parents)--but you must have been exposed of the idea of a thiestic god. Perhaps a friend mentioned it, or you heard the idea on TV.

Society influenced you to assume that there was one God who was responsible for the world (or at least to think of that idea)--if you'd grown up in ancient Greece, you'd have asked your parents about "the gods" and tell us that you must have been born a polytheist.

Hi Jez ,

"Not going to find an adaptation of the cat analogy for druidry?"

no.

Being generally of sound mind, except when it comes to cats, I cannot see their behavioue being effectively stretched to cover any form of theism. Except, of course, that they know they are gods.

There are times when I agree with them.

Blessings,
Catholwch /|\.

Hi, Az. 'Sense' is as in 'an animal which suckles its young', while the reference might be a list like: "Cow, elephant, dog, whale ......"
That would be for "mammal" of course. Either way of doing it enables us to pick out mammals, but the 'sense' will work for new ones we don't know of yet.

toxx

I forgot. The material universe is that which is studied by physicists.

toxx

Morning az, Toxx,

So 'sense' means 'description' or definition while 'reference' means 'example'.

In mathematics a rational number is one which can be produced by the multiplication or division of integers while examples would be 2, 5, 7.95 and 3.3333recurring.

On the other hand 'rational' means 'thought out and considered' or 'behaving in a thought out and considered way'. Examples would be exercising; because the long term benefits outweigh the short term discomfort or even (arguably) smoking; because the short term pleasure (to some) is worth the longer term risks. In other words rational behaviour is that in which the individual has taken a conscious decision, weighing up the short and long term consequences and the anticipated 'rewards'.



My immediate reaction to 'material universe' was that the phrase is tautological but I admit there are at least concepts, if not necessarily genuine phenomena, beyond the 'material'. These would include such concepts as 'spiritual' and 'emotional'. Many people, religious people in particular, appear to believe that these ephemera can exist in their own right without the need for a 'material universe'. I personally do not and I see this as a basic conceptual difference between many atheists and non-atheists. Indeed it may be this which determines whether a person can declare themselves atheist or 'merely' agnostic. Christians, for example, often say 'God is love' meaning that God is, literally, love. No more or less - just pure emotion. Pretty though this sentiment is, I see it as describing software running with no hardware. Windows XP is all well and good (cripes, what an analogy) but it is meaningless without all those bits of copper and silicon it runs on.

Is this how people view their god(s) perhaps? Something non-material that either is, or at least interacts with, the bits of the universe that can be described as 'non-material' (cautiously avoiding the word 'immaterial') and having no need of matter for its existence?

F

<>




az

Fathom. Nice try, but 'thought out and considered' by an idiot or nutter wouldn't be rational, would it? You are going to have to consider the nature of the thought and consideration in order to do this. I'm not saying I know the answer and it seems to me that you are on the right lines.

toxx

<>

How can you define 'rational' if no one can truly define what is normal? As for saying in terms of its sense, intuitively? We have a common reference of the word and what we intend to mean when we use it conversly or in a literal sense.

Kind of an odd challenge, was it from a rational thought?