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

You say that you have no sensory experience of the Great Wall of China, but you believe in it based on consensus. The parallel you are trying to draw is with the non-sensory, consensus existence of god. This is misleading. First, you have seen photographs of it. You know how photographs work, and that they mimic the eye. So, while you do not have direct sensory information, you do have indirect sensory information. No such information is available on god.

Secondly, while you have no direct sensory experience of the Great Wall of China personally, you do have a wealth of information from those who do have direct sensory experience with it. Those reports, when compared, match very closely. They will all tell you, within a certain margin of error, that there are 200 paces between each tower. They will tell you how long it is in miles, how thick it is, what color it is, what kind of state of repair it is in, and so on. When a consensus is reached in the intimate details, then we can rely on their reports and consider their consensus to be true. There are no two concepts of god that can match that sort of reliability. That is because nobody has any direct sensory experience of him (despite claims to the contrary) and therefore the accounts cannot establish anything resembling a consensus.

So, now that we have established that you cannot know god through either consensus nor direct sensory observation, I think we can be done with him, don't you?

"When we talk about the unity of all processes, we are beginning to talk about God." - This is semantic. Why choose the word 'God'? Why not choose the word 'the universe'?

"When we talk about the inexplicable mystery that any processes occur at all, then we are definitely talking about God." This is the fill-in-the-blanks fallacy (a new argument I learned at the debate last night ) that Christians have been so guilty of. Anything that lacks an answer automatically has that void filled with god. The problem is that god isn't necessarily the answer. But if we plug that void with god, then we stop asking the question. If we keep working at it, we can probably come up with a better answer. History has proven this. Remember, the period of Western history that was dominated by god is called the Dark Ages. The atheist can accept the answer "I don't know" to the question about the mystery of the processes of life. At the moment, that is the only reasonable answer.

Haha, gosh Colonel Sellers, thanks for telling me (and so many others) that I haven't had direct experience of the divine. I've seen the error of my ways. Also, to the Coca-cola corporation, I would also like to say I've been wrong, wrong, so very wrong all these years; despite my direct experience to the contrary, Coke really is it. Colonel, I'd just like to know who's been telling you that the gall you're chewing on tastes sweet?

Kierkegaardvark - I know you, and I know that you have more to offer the world than contempt. Let your lovelight shine, baby.

Colonel Sellers, my reply to your critique:

Somehow I suspected that you'd be the first to reply... [cracks knuckles, rolls up sleeves]

You seem to think that I'm trying to demonstrate the existence of God. I'm not. I'm trying to demonstrate the the idea of 'existence' is a fallacy.

"The parallel you are trying to draw is with the non-sensory, consensus existence of god."
No it isn't. I did not intend to make an analogy between the Great Wall of China and God. Had I, your critique would have applied. As it is, your critique supports what I would also say, that consensus compels belief. Consensus about God is not widespread.

I don't think that anyone seriously claims direct *sensory* experience of God. If they do, I'm sorry. That's too bad.

"'When we talk about the unity of all processes, we are beginning to talk about God.' - This is semantic. Why choose the word 'God'? Why not choose the word 'the universe'?"
Well, yes it's semantic. Wasn't it my point that 'existence' IS semantics? And I did NOT say 'God is the unity of all processes.' That would be a *definition*, which would be an arrogant and fatuous undertaking on my part, don't you think? I meant that, when you realize that All is One, then you are thinking about what others have thought about when they thought about God. Read Plotinus?

"'When we talk about the inexplicable mystery that any processes occur at all, then we are definitely talking about God.' This is the fill-in-the-blanks fallacy... But if we plug that void with god, then we stop asking the question. If we keep working at it, we can probably come up with a better answer."
Fallacy, schmallacy, Colonel. I was just wandering dangerously close to a definition. According to your line, every definition is a fill-in-the-blanks fallacy. Don't know what holds us onto the planet? Call it 'gravity'. But if we plug that void with gravity, then we stop asking the question. Sure, until an Einstein or a Hawking comes along. Oh, and I would NEVER suggest that we stop working on a question on the grounds that God is lurking around it. I would take that as a call to work with more fervor, knowing that our work is a holy undertaking.

I accept 'I don't know' as the answer when I'm talking about science. Science is an analytic activity in which processes are broken into parts and the parts analyzed further into smaller processes. When God is being talked about, there is a completely different activity going on. 'How can we talk about God, if not scientifically?' is an excellent question! Thanks for asking. I'll try to address that one when I write more.

Finally, my question for you Colonel. What do you think of the bulk of what I wrote, the pure philosophy of language part, the part that doesn't mention the G-word? That part was much more interesting to me.

Cheers!

*pretends the first response never occurred*

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your aim in writing this piece, GT. Perhaps I came into it with a preconception, based on our earlier conversation about the same subject, in which you argued for existence. If your stated purpose is to show the meaninglessness of existence, then the question of the existence of god becomes even more meaningless (if that's possible, how can it mean less than nothing?).

There are people who talk about a direct, sensory experience with god. As a recovered Christian, I know exactly what they're talking about. It's a powerful emotional response to their own belief. It's basically meditation, with a powerful focus. But contrary to their beliefs, it has no origin outside the human mind. And yes, I feel sorry for them, too. In my defense, I was an impressionable young teenager, and I outgrew it.

God is an answer that is far different from gravity. We can recognise that "gravity" is simply a label for a natural force that we can observe but cannot understand. "God" is also a label, for an unnatural force that we cannot understand. But once God enters the equation, the eyes glaze over. He doesn't do anything to promote curiousity. But gravity won't send you to Hell.

I found the philosophical part very stimulating, which is hard to reconcile with the way it made me feel like my sense of self had somehow diminished.

"Perhaps I came into it with a preconception, based on our earlier conversation about the same subject, in which you argued for existence."

Actually, in that earlier conversation, I tried to argue against the provability of either existence or non-existence... In a room full of atheists, I came off sounding like a theist (which I am, but not the kind who would argue for existence - only for the possibility of existence). In a room full of theists, I would have come off sounding like an atheist. I just don't believe that *proofs* can apply to the question, bacause I don't believe that proofs can apply anwhere outside of pure mathematics and logic. The reason you can't apply proofs to the world is because I can undermine the definitions of your terms and whatever other assumptions you use about what it means to 'exist', which is how that conversation ultimately inspired this entry. Whew, that was a mouthful.

"God is an answer that is far different from gravity. We can recognise that 'gravity' is simply a label for a natural force that we can observe but cannot understand. 'God' is also a label, for an unnatural force that we cannot understand. But once God enters the equation, the eyes glaze over. He doesn't do anything to promote curiousity. But gravity won't send you to Hell."

I don't know why you call God unnatural. I would not. And I'm sorry for the chap with the glazed eyes. I can talk about God and my eyes stay clear and alert. I, and others I know, are very curious about God, and actively pursue our interest in spiritual matters. Nor do we fear hellfire. That's a silly superstition for nincompoops. What's too bad is that they're missing out on the real message behind the idea of hell, that hell is a state of being, and that you don't have to die to get there, that it's a state of alienation from God, and that if you can snap out of it, you can be in heaven, which doesn't come after death either.

"There are people who talk about a direct, sensory experience with god. As a recovered Christian, I know exactly what they're talking about. It's a powerful emotional response to their own belief. It's basically meditation, with a powerful focus. But contrary to their beliefs, it has no origin outside the human mind."

The word 'sensory' threw me... There is NOTHING that has no origin outside the human mind... I don't know much about mediation. I've had what I would consider an experience of the divine, but it was not in a mediative state, it was in a hung-over state. Oh, and there was another one in a state that the moderators certainly wouldn't approve of. The first had an emotional component, but that wasn't its source, and it wasn't a product of my belief, because at the time, I had none. I just walked into a room and there He was. It hit me like a brick. Suddenly I could no longer call myself an atheist. I would certainly agree that it was in my mind, but I don't see why I couldn't find God there just as well as anywhere else.

Ah, I'll shut up. I don't want to sound preachy; I do want you to realize that I'm not one of the nincompoops against whom you so love to rail. I just had an experience that changed me from an atheist into a vague theist, and I've been working on the vagueness ever since, although if I ever cleared it away, I'd probably miss it.

GTB

It's updated a bit now... more to come still... !