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

Yeah, God and Gods came before anyone invented Churches. They were attempts to explain things, and also just plain entertainment. We like stories and stories explain things, or at least pass on experience in a form that allows us to experience that experience once more. They are central to all cultures and some stories became foundations of whole ways of life. Churches created guardians of the myths and also institutions that developed the myths into something more coherent. All the great religions produced educational institutions that pursued greater knowledge about the natural world as well as society and the moral order of things.

One is loathe to dismiss the whole religious enterprise as an exercise in hatred, control and cynicism. One can find that just as virulent in aetheistic philosophies and political movements - communism and fascism spring to mind.

But as human thought has progressed we find the worst elements of it are bolstered more by superstition and appeals to magical thinking and so-called revealed truth than by reason. Religions seek respectability by either attempting rather futilely to latch onto some sort of "scientific" credentials, or by dismissing the whole humanistic and rationalistic approach and opting for "belief" as its own proof and a dismissal of technology and pleasure seeking as somehow evil and offensive, thus deserving of extreme punishment.

The problem of viewing the world rationally is that one has to say there are are things we just don't know and that most of what we do know is contingent. And because people vary in intelligence and just plain time to study the whole of human knowledge, the simplicities of "faith" will always appeal. That's why states back religions or use religions to back the state. There is some truth in the idea that if people do not believe a relatively benign religion with strong links to ancient traditions, they will believe practically anything and find themselves falling into ways of thinking that lead them into apocalyptic and downright nasty thoughts.

What we're perhaps seeing nowadays is the final collapse of the "reformed" religions that tried to accomodate modern scientific thought and a collapse into the crazier side of religion by those who cannot quite make the final leap of faith away from the certainties of religion into the open possibilities of rationality.

Rationality itself failed to come up with a viable alternatice. Communism proved itslef to be merely a secular religion with as much reliance upon brutality and wishful thinking as any irrational religion. And Fascism was shot through with superstitition and irrationality and never really anything more than a parody of scientific thought elevating a very crude version of Darwinism into some sort of sacred creed.

Perhaps now we are beginning to see religions failings all the more clearly and the demand for an emotionally satisfying humanistic rational approach will set more people seeking out a solution that will not lead people into similar crudities to those that sprang up in the 20th Century.

In january 2005 The World Atheists Conference will take place at Vijayawada in India and in July the International Humanist and Ethical union has its world congress at the Paris headquarters of the United nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. Both these events will seek to boost the profile of Atheists and Humanists in the face of the current onslaught on humanitarian ideals that some of the major religions and present day political leaders have been perpetrating.

<>

A good thing, surely?

<>
Not true of any religion that I am aware of.

<< That's why states back religions or use religions to back the state.>>

A minority of states and religions, BTW.

<>

Please define...

<>
Then, there's always h2g2!

<>
to me that'd be people like New Agers
not people like Math who have adopted a reasonably full if unconventional religious outlook but those people who adopt a hodge podge of ideas from assorted places

Well most religions contain elements of each other.

Christians do borrow wholesale the stories for the old testament from Judaism. Jesus and Moses are prophets in Islam too. All of them have elements of older traditions and faiths wrapped up in their theologies.

Sikhs and Budhists share elements of their faiths with the hindu faith from which they sprouted.

Della's assertion that religion rarely has anything to do with the state is either terribly uninformed or an outright lie. Which is typical of most of theings she posts here.

You cant have Popes sancitoning the succesion of European leaders for centuries and say there is no conection between political power and religion. The bible was edited not by the church in England the final say so was left to the King, hence the King James V bible. Europes kings were meant to rule by devine right passed to them directly by the bigG. It was in England where the famous quote "No bishops, no Kings". Money for religious wars against other christian sects were cpllected throught the encouragement and administrative structure of the church.



In India the hierachy of society was set up strictly along religious lines. The story was that if you were reincarnated (born) into a poor family it was because of misdeeds in a former life and you were not allowed to rise above your station as that is where the gods had placed you. likewise if you werre born to power no matter how you abused that power it was taboo for anyone to questuion your actions that was only a matter for the gods.

one love

<>

Yes! I have met a number of New Age-y people like that, mostly American baby-boomers who settled here in the late 1970s, people like Marshall's new wife in Ab Fab, whatsername, Muffy or something?

They're mostly harmless, though...

true, irritating though

<>

>A good thing, surely?<

Never said it wasn’t. I’m arguing the importance of religion and its place in our intellectual development.

<>
>Not true of any religion that I am aware of. <

The Taliban in Afghanistan hung TV sets from trees. The Amish refuse to use anything other than horse and carts. Jehovah’s witnesses refuse blood transfusions. And so on…

<< That's why states back religions or use religions to back the state.>>

>A minority of states and religions, BTW.<

BTW. The majority do. The Chinese Communist Party is about the only one I can think of at the moment with a distinct anti-religious policy. All others require you to swear on the Bible or the Koran, have political parties drawing upon the funding of religious organisations, political leaders espousing religious beliefs, and heads of State either sanctioned by religions or even, as in the case of the UK, the head of the church itself. Even the present Russian government calls upon the Orthodox Church to give its blessing.

<>

>Please define... <

The Jones Town Massacre strikes me as a good example of crazy religious activity. But then so does the belief that girls should not be educated. Suicide bombers. Whipping oneself. Burning witches. Having oneself nailed to a cross for Easter, as they do in the Philippines does not seem too sane to me …

In comparison to the beliefs and actions of many supposedly mainstream religions, hugging a Tree seems positively sane.

MOLEST ME NOT WITH THIS POCKET CALCULATOR STUFF!!!!

Oh, alright then!

Look in mirror...see????
Are you sure that is you?
The human brain is easily misled you know. VERY EASILY.

imagine if you everyone was blind (no need to go into the semantics of that, just imagine for now) and you formed all sorts of theories and facts about the universe...each time the theories and facts were tested by others...agreements were reached which in turn led to a sense of satisfaction and joy in the knowledge. Now, imagine that suddenly everyone can see - now all the theories have to be adjusted...the old truths become anything from little white lies to in-your-face deceit.

Well, that's the circumstance we are in now....and yet you think that WE can determine if there is a GOD.......hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Not a chance...the very concept of God is bound by our own senses...FORGET trying to prove it...just make your choice and be happy.

<>

But something like this happens anyway. We are continually finding new ways of interrogting the universe - probing the vastness of space with radiowaves, measuring the activity of the brain with PET scans or whatever. And when we get answers we re-evalute our theories. The old theories were not white lies, or deceits, merely incomplete.

Noggin

If something exists - it is natural. If it does not exist - it is supernatural. Therefore no supernatural things exist.

Noggin

Well, I find that the question of god existing or not often gets lost when compared to religion. People will discuss for hours what makes more sense, and 'proof' of the existance, or reason for believing in god, always come down to 'who created the universe' etc.

The bigger discussion in my mind, but less touched upon, is the gap between a belief in a 'god' (or at leat the possibility of something creating the universe etc.) and peoples' belief in religion.

By belief in religion i mean the very specific belief derived from different religions. For instance, 'abortion is wrong' from the catholic faith, or 'drinking alcohol is wrong' from the islamic faith. There is a big difference between having a faith (requiring no justification) in a creator, and faith in a rule or ritual.

As it happens, many of the rules and rituals are reasonably senseible, and come from practical circumstance, or firm moral value. However, when actions are justified from these specific beliefs individual to religion, it seems strange. Basing your own actions upon not a faith in a higher power (little can be derived from this faith alone) but upon religion specific values and 'commandments'. I am sketchy on many details, but i think i remeber Jewish people are not to have milk and meat in the same meal ? (or cooked together) a more mundane rule, but again, why 'belive' in something so specific.

My own belief does not discount the possibility of there being an omnipotent being, just as it does not discount other possibilities. I do not have a specific belief in a religion, though it seems if I had one that said say 'it is wrong to stand at the third bus stop from town on a Saturday at midnight', i would (based on other religions' judgements) be entirely right in pusuing judgement upon others for doing this thing. I dont like this element in relgion, but I am happy if people just leave me to my own beliefs (in which no real 'God figure' is a feature).

I also believe that the default state of a person should be to have no religion, and come into as religion through their own desicions (singing hyms as standard in prmiary school, not even special religious schools, surely makes up the m,inds of children before they can find their own opinions).

Daniel

(Sorry, meant to reply to main thread, not Noggin!)

I'm sorry, milebushman, that seems like begging the question! Simply assuming that all that exists is naturak, therefore... Circular reasoning at best, and nothing has been proved.

Many can look at a sunrise for long enough and see God, most people just go blind.

There seem to be many issues wrapped up in the God issue, such as the human soul existing, whether love ( or for that matter, hatred, scorn, fear, and that itching sensation on the top of my foot I can't reach through my shoes when it would be socially akward to remove them) is an emotional responce that we feel simply because we have all these crazy hormones colliding all willy-nilly in our bodies or if it is the beautiful and awe inspiring ethereal deal that inspires poets and what-not.... What was I talking about? Oh yes.


Science does seem to have the one up on religion by being able to admit that there is truly no way to know right now. Religion would of course suffer a collapse an admission like this, and far fewer people would feel the need to tithe. I don't see how anyone could know definitely one way or the other, but I do find it much easier(and slightly more fun) to disprove God than to prove Him(or her{or it[or something]})

<>

I think the point is that there is no situation in which the distinction natural/supernatural, as usually employed, can be made to any explanatory work.

Say something happens that is *very* unusual - a "candidate" supernatural event, if you will. We assume it has a cause of some sort. It may not have, but if it doesn't we can't discover that it doesn't, and in the meantime it remains *completely* mysterious. If it does have a cause we tentatively assume it is either "natural" or "supernatural". If we can discover a natural cause (and this *could* include discovering a new "law of nature"), then it is a natural event. If we can't discover a natural cause, there is still no reason to assume "cause supernatural" rather than "cause unknown." But the kicker is - if we do discover a cause - something amenable to repetition and mathematical description - then tht cause is necessrily natural, because this is the process whereby we discover what the natural laws are. "Supernatural" can therefore never be anything more than a placeholder for "cause unknown".

And just a quick nod to hallidayuk (Daniel) - I think you make an interesting and valid point.

Noggin

Semantics, Apple Adelaide - not a circular argument. My belief is that all things that exist are natural. No need for the word supernatural at all. All it could possibly mean is something that cannot (yet) be explained. If you wish to argue a wothwhile difference between natural and artificial - that's another story... (even plastic flowers are not supernatural.)

Possibly you're right that it's just semantics - I'd like to see a definition of supernatural... I don't think "cause unknown" is an adequate one at all!

<>

The difference between natural and artificial is *not* what I had in mind! (Obviously).

You said "The difference between natural and artificial is *not* what I had in mind! (Obviously)."

Indeed that was obvious. However I was defending myself in advance from those who would argue with my belief that all things that exist are natural. I do actually believe that of plastic flowers as well.... It is a however a common distinction worth making to differentiate flowers that were/are alive from those which are not only not alive, but will never wilt. Plastic flowers are nevertheless the result of nature (us).

I hope not to appear flippant, but believing in things we cannot experience* is a form of self-delusion. Nothing else. It may be a delusion brought on by brainwashing when young or whatever, and it may be a fairly common delusion and widely held, but a delusion nevertheless.
By the way - not being an expert ornithologist, nor an expert on aircraft nor an entymologyst - I am very ignorant. As a result I see UFO's daily - in fact all the time. They are all natural, I'm sure - they all have natural explanations - most of which seem obvious. Any that are not obvious I put down to my own fallibility. (Certainly not to angels, ghosts or visitors from outer space!)

* by experience I mean not necessarily on a personal level but experience recorded in a measurable and verifiable (i.e. scientific) way by oneself or others. I just do not believe people who say they have seen a ghost - have actually seen a ghost. They may have experienced something - but it has an explanation even if we are currently ignorant of it. The explanation does not involve anything "supernatural". Gimme a beer.

www.dictionary.com

supernatural

adj : not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material; "supernatural forces and occurrences and beings" [ant: natural] n : supernatural forces and events and beings collectively; "She doesn't believe in the supernatural" [syn: occult]

I just wanted to give bushman something to think about.

We are all subjective and a subjective experience that is not measurable or recordable for wider acsess shouldn't be disregarded. If you were to talk about someone you love should I say that love doesn't exist on the basis that no one else can experience it, and therefore your emotions are of no relavence? Or, indeed, we could say all experience, even measurable and recordable, is subjective and we can't share any of it with anyone else, if you want to get needlessly philosophical. In any case that which would be termed supernatural can't be doubted on the basis of logical thought because logic is only based on what information we have at present through our own subjective inquiries into reality, and you may have to come to terms with possibility that some people may know things about reality that you disbelieve because they can't prove it to you before you experiance it. Respect to you if you don't believe in santa but there are beliefs that some people have that you may need to review, because, who knows, they might be right.