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

AM. You are presumably against infant baptism too. It is seen as a rite to welcome the child to the community - not as indoctrination. Depends on the particlar culture, of course. I guess the birth certificate thing is in case of emergency. Don't want the wrong flavour of preacher officiating!

toxx

Hi toxxin,

My objecttion to putting religions on birth certificates is related to, for instance, the way in which certain people in Northern Ireland behaved towards children who were going to a religious school. It can be quite dangerous to have such labels attached to children.

And it seems to be inconsistent with the apparent requirement of many Christians (for example) who like to repeat that people must use their free will to choose to follow god or believe in god, but are very happy right from the outset to label a child in such a way that it assumes that this free choice has already been made.

If infant baptism is seen simply as a ritual used to welcome a child into a community then that is one thing, but then it ceases to be religious, I would hope. There are some rituals that I happily engage in, such as Christmas, but I don't do this in a religious sense. More a sense of wanting to receive presents and make other people happy by giving them presents.

To be perfectly honest, I don't think I actually know what the purpose of baptism is. If I've not been baptised, and I die, do I not get a chance to go to wherever one is supposed to go?

And, as it happens, I actually was christened when I was a baby, so what does this mean to me now that I have decided that there is no god? Do I still have the ticket that gets me in? I would not have thought so.

Personally, I would not have any child of mine baptised; but then I also would not tell them that Father Christmas or the Tooth Fairy exist. Although I can see that this could lead to other children's parents not being particularly with me. We'll have to see if that situation ever arises for me.

M.

AM. In simpler times and places, there is little distinction between the social and religious communities. I guess, since you don't believe there's anywhere to enter, you won't be needing that ticket anyway. Parents who believe there is somewhere are trying to do the best for their child in case the worst happens. One can hardly blame them!

toxx

Hi,

Does this then mean that a child who has not been baptised who then dies before becoming aware of the rites and beliefs that they are meant to hold in the religion they are supposeduly a member of would not go to heaven?

Hmm, a bit of a long sentence there! Too many clauses.

Of course, in my earlier posting I said that I would tell my children about one particular Claus.

M. 6*6+6=42

Apatheologian


Actually, I'm not; I'm conducting a conceptual enquiry into the limits of meaning in concepts

<...no mortal rules apply to a god.> But the question is "Do *any* rules apply to a God?" Of course, the question is complicated by the fact that *rule* is itself a human concept, and adherence to rules of logic and inference is, for humans, constitutive of thought and concept formation, even when we have the wrong rules. Yes, , but if "paradoxical" is being used with its full force this is simply a good reason for rejecting Absolutes. No rules of logic and inference apply, and no meaningful concept of the paradoxical thing or event can be formed. One can't in fact argue the semantics of words that have no semantic content.



To have a reason, he must already be subject to rules that distinguish reason from no reason, and one reason from another.

Noggin

AM. I believe that the 'ticket' theory of baptism is fairly widely held. Parents like to play safe even if they are sceptical.

toxx

Hi toxx,

So, if you were to subscribe to the "ticket" theory of baptism/christening, then this suggests that seeing as I would presumably not hold this ticket anymore because of my unbelief, and seeing as I once held it as a result of my infantile baptism, I must have lost the ticket at some point.

Seems rather unsporting that I was not informed when this had happened.

M. 6*6+6=42.

Noggin. toxx

Here's another thing:

If parents baptise their children in order to try to get them a ticket into heaven, and if this is supposedly okay because the child is not old enough to know that it ought to be asking Jesus to save it from its (original) sin, then why does it need to be baptised at all? If it is not aware of needing to worship god or ask Jesus to enter its life and "save it", then how could a benevolent god "punish" that child by not allowing it into heaven purely because its parents did not believe?

You could argue that they need to be saved from the original sin, but that sin was not the direct fault of the child. And original sin sounds rather grotesque anyway (which, I know, is not a reason for its untruth) since it is based on this "visit the sins of the father on future generations" kind of idea which seems out of place with what most people would think of as morality. And although this also does not mean that we have the "right" morality, I am reasonably sure that if I were to start advocating the punishment of grandchildren, great-grandchildren etc for crimes that people they may never have met had performed, I would not be regarded as having good morals.

M.

A challenging rejoinder as always, toxx #17588

So, easiest challenge first. I think the ball is in your court because the kalam *requires* that the universe be timebound in order to work. I, therefore, can get away with casting reasonable doubt on this assertion, but *you* are required to provide some sort of proof.
And I'm not adding properties to the universe, but removing one - time.

Mind/matter distinction. Okay, I'll allow conceptual, but only because I think it's irrelevant to the argument. Which is that if mind and matter interact they are necessarily part of the same set of rules. And if God's mind interacts with the material universe, then it's part of a universe which includes both mind and matter. And if God's mind is timeless then the rules of that universe allow for timelessness. QED

Physics *conceptualises* the universe, and necessarily te process starts with concepts we already have, and extrapolates them as far as it can. But that process has *already* integrated time with space and matter, and though I don't claim any real understanding of string theory/quantum gravity there are intimations that the directionality of time is going to be a casualty of any unified theory.

Noggin

as i understand ,in some faiths you will need to be babtised or before comfirmation can be taken.

As to putting "religous orders" on birth certificate i'm not aware of that being law ,it may appear on us but then again the whole "U.S" was started by "pilgrim"(whose religous beliefs contradicted..) who would now be called refugees!So i could understand if it was so.

Ifinity is the "that" that follows "this" that being what we know must logicaly follow or precede what we dont know along with perfection though both being measurements that are personal to us the "names/labels/tags" we give them are for personal references only.

So to explain our concept of what is a yard to a person who has gone metric a "metre" would be used both units of measurement both do the same "job" when practised yet neither is the "true way"

Apples Pears Tomatoe's are all fruit,If my "investigating" into the ways of the world has taught me nothing else i do know that for every right answer there will also be a wrong one, so if there is a wrong one it might be mine!

Another example to explain infinite/finite the distence between right and wrong ,looked at from both ends of the scale.

[I also would not tell them that Father Christmas or the Tooth Fairy exist.] i also hope that you do not deny that the could excist of may have done.

if I were to start advocating the punishment of grandchildren, great-grandchildren etc

Thats a big can of worms to many "persona" native american moved of fertile lands as punishment for leaveing reservations.

Whole tribes in Africa moved from there land !?

Bosnia !?

cypres !?

the list is endles you cant tell me "such punishment!such that you are aware ?"

Its still happening today

...busy in here innit...

Noggin. It was a challenging challenge. I don't often need to write at such length!

Could we not say that timelessness is the value of a variable, and therefore a property in itself? If you are really removing time, then your problem about directionality of causes, and others, arises before you mention it. I plead the Second Law of Thermodynamics in my defence. We can't readily abandon that! Not just the kalam, but good, old-fashioned physics requires that the universe be 'timebound' as you call it.



Energy and matter interact, yet they are very different things. They are interconvertible via that famous equation, but mind and matter can be related too. However, there's no reason why they have to be in every case. Either way, I'd be content for now to accept that at the moment of creation, part of God became part of the material universe. I don't think I need to allow more than that, if even that much.

Hey, there's gonna be a helluva scrap if a unified theory requires us to abandon the second law!

toxx

OK, Ok! You got me AM!


But you inherit genes from parents. It was they who were CoE!

Tis not a court of law that we are (unles u believe in the big 1).
I think you understood my point.

My aim is not to mock religion but to challenge it a little.

It is with my life experience that I judge and discard faith.

That does not prevent me gazing in awe at what mathematics has created.
Perhaps His true name is Mathematics?

Hi Noggin,

"Mind/matter distinction. Okay, I'll allow conceptual, but only because I think it's irrelevant to the argument. Which is that if mind and matter interact they are necessarily part of the same set of rules. And if God's mind interacts with the material universe, then it's part of a universe which includes both mind and matter. And if God's mind is timeless then the rules of that universe allow for timelessness. QED"

Which is pretty much what I said earlier when I was treated to a sarcastic comment about God's will power by Toxxin.

Surely also the converse applies: if the universe is not timeless and cannot be so then neither can God's mind. Or is this not the case?

Recent research suggests that there really is a limit to how short a time interval there can be. The Plankk (sp?) Time of about 10^-43 seconds is a good fit for this in the theory which suggests the universe is effectively digital. This apparently explains all sorts of unifying issues and the problem of the directionality of time.

If God's mind can interact with the universe then there must be some set of common rules - these must exist within the physical parameters of the universe as well as within God.

F

universe is effectively digital.

Fathom.



That wasn't intended sarcastically! "And God said 'let there be light', and there was light". Sounds pretty much like will power to me. It doesn't say that He did anything but speak, and presumably will, the effect.

Oh! Did I really forget to mention the Planck Time? I could have sworn .......

toxx

Fathom. Forgot to mention. The quote is from Genesis 1:3



Why not just rules of interaction like 'e=mc^2'?

toxx

Actually Toxxin, rules like E=mc^2 is what I was thinking. The point here is that if E=mc^2 then m=E/c^2

In other words the function operates both ways. If God's Mind = f(universe) then universe = f^-1(God's Mind).

Elements of God's Mind could be (would have to be?) detectable in the laws of physics. I look forward to that paper in 'Nature'!

I believe you did mention Planck Time which is what brought to mind the recent research which offered a clue as to how the directionality of time might work.

F