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

Hi Albaus .

And welcome to the thread!

"There is nothing which has been done under the guise of religion which could not have been done without it. A quotation of which I am particularly fond: "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion;" Steven Weinberg."

Precisely my point, or at least your words rather than the quote. So why do some atheists insist on placing practically every evil they can think of at 'our' door. Such a vehement attack can only come from fear, and as we all know fear is rooted in ignorance.

As I have debated at length over on the 'God: Fact or Fiction?' thread, it is power and the men behind it that have created most of the evil acts in history. Religion has been used as the pretext many times, but greed and power have been the true motivators.

As for Mr.Weinberg, well it is obvious he is still lost in the dualism of christianity. The quote (and please remember I do not know the context from which it was wrenched), presupposes that some people are by their very nature 'evil' and some are 'good'. People cannot be evil or good, these words are descriptions for actions, not states of being. If you start believing that these are states of being then you have to suppose that these states have an outside agency directing them, which rather undermines the original point, doesn't it?

Religion, in all its myriad forms, has brought love, hope and purpose to the the lives of billions over the millenia. It has created a context in which people have been able to frame their lives and allowed them to live with the belief that they have made a difference.

As much as I abhor blind faith, I also abhor those who would take away such love, hope and purpose because of their own intellectual disappointment, and not leave anything in its place. The march of 'rationalism', as I am wont to call it, sounds wonderful in theory, just as national socialism and communism did in their day. But in each case the original intention of 'freeing' people from their idealogical chains quickly turns sour. For at the end of the day each of these movements has no moral or ethical core that can catch the imaginations of the people nor fulfill their desire to believe in the divine nature of being.

Until a non-religious movement can find that moral and ethical core, and make it appealing to people, then they are all doomed to failure. The problem is each time they carry the people along with them for a while, and then cast them adrift without any hope or purpose. This begins a vicious spiral down into social collapse, such as we are seeing in some areas of our society.

Whole generations of our young are growing up in a culture that preaches that it can deliver immediate self-gratification through conspicuous consumption. Unfortunately the promises are hollow for no society can support this unsustainable rate of growth. The disappointed litter our streets in growing numbers, despite every effort of government. This is the result of denying the opportunity for love, hope and purpose that religion (in its very broadest sense) can bring.

The people know this. Despite the fact that all the mainstream religions have been effectively discredited by waves of rational dogma, people are seeking a personal spiritual element to their lives in ever increasing numbers. With the traditional churches in disarray they are returning to older faiths in droves. We can barely cope with the sheer quantity of enquiries. Our websites are being overwhelmed.

This too has brought about problems, for wherever a crowd gathers the sharks are not far away. Thus a whole range of new age charlatans have appeared to lull the gullible into parting with their cash and their free will. Promising salvation in minutes to people bred on instant self-gratification. A fact that has not gone unnoticed by the rationalist media who sensationalise it and try to discredit us as well.

A so the wheel turns. Where it will end I do not know. What I do know is that somewhere the men of power are revelling in the discord and turning a handsome profit.

Love, hope and purpose,
Matholwch /|\.

GTB:

Can you prove that?



Oh well said, Great and Glorious Leader! How long have you been saving all this up for?



Is that a gratuitous assertion, or do you have any, er, evidence?

NAITA:

GTB:

Well said, but I would like to know if you agree or disagree with the original contention. So, I suspect, would NAITA! Or maybe - best of all - your off the wall response indicates what my old Mum always used to say: "A silly question deserves a silly answer."

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

A freak accident in the same way that *everything* that exists would be a freak accident? Your reasoning doesn't apply *only* to the human race.... So yes, you're right, I think. Given that quite a number of things appear to exist, either they were created, or its all a coincidence; a freak accident.





I think the idea is that - to each of us - the only person or thing that *certainly* exists is ourselves. Thus *to me*, you may or may not exist. If you doubt your own existence, you have some interesting problems! Your therapist isn't Gag Halfrunt by any chance?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I don't doubt my own existance, but I do have some moments when I wonder if anything else is actually real in the way I perceive it to be. But since at the moment I can't tell, I guess I just have to behave as if it is real, pending further evidence. Am I really sitting, as I think I probably am at the moment, in a large room containing about 150 PCs and a smattering of computer science students, with sun shining in through the windows and a keyboard which really isn't very nice to type on beneath my rapidly-moving fingers?

How would I know if I'm not?

And if I'm not, where the am I?

If we're living in a simulation, are our Gods the people who run it?

Then there are those who fail to acknowledge the nature of subjective truth, they are bonkers too. All together now: we're all bonkers!

Subjective truths are dependent for their truth on those who believe or accept them, in contrast to the more generally known and accepted 'objective' truths.

Everyone *is* right - in this context of subjective claims - although this is not a particularly useful observation. Like observing that everything we see has a colour, it doesn't really take us anywhere. But it's true.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

'but I suppose your point is that if any Christian justifies a war by claiming ""God"'s Plan", you can feel perfectly guiltless in killing them where they stand.'
Why would anyone do that? I don't like war, and I wouldn't say it was God's plan to have war. We make war, not God.
Jem

'but I suppose your point is that if any Christian justifies a war by claiming ""God"'s Plan", you can feel perfectly guiltless in killing them where they stand.'
Why would anyone say that. I wouldn't say war was God's plan. We make war, not God.
Jem

"We make war, not God"

Hurrah for sense! Hurrah for sense!

I'm inclined to agree.

Hurrah for sense indeed.

F

Jem,

Very well put.

Except that we do also make God - at least the one with capital letters.

az

hi Pattern-chaser,

I still say that there is no such thing as 'objective truth'.

az

Hi Az.

So would PC; and so would I when it's used in an absolute sense.

In a relative sense, however, "A giant redwood is larger than a daffodil" might be regarded as more objective than "I'm better looking than Mel Gibson."

Math: I think you're right to pick on the cult of instant gratification as a prime source of disappointment and anomie. Self proclaimed rationalists may espouse it (as do many religions), but it leads neither to rationalism nor religion.

Noggin

Noggin,

I think you know that when I'm talking about 'objective truth' I'm not talking about everyday physical things that can be easily proved by just looking at them.

Meanwhile, my only problem with the concept of 'instant gratification' is that it takes too long (ha ha ha - old joke)

az

'Except that we do also make God - at least the one with capital letters.'
In that case, where did all these wild theories come from in the first place? Do we make God? Is it like in Terry Pratchett when the gods get stronger when people believe in them, or don't they exist at all in your opinion?
Jem

Hello, another long-winded one, I'm afraid:

GTB: [Atheism, Agnosticism and Theism:] "These aren't really contradictory, because they're claims made in different realms. Mathematically, they're made in different coordinate systems, between which there's no translation mapping."

Fathom: Huh? You mean if I don't believe in God there isn't one, if I do there is and if I'm agnostic God is in some kind of superposition?


Superposition, huh? That might follow from what I said, and I'll think about it. It wasn't the angle I was coming at it from, though. A different metaphor - Take the three claims:

"There is no God."
"God is unknown (unknowable?)."
"There is a God."

These are claims made in different languages, and attempting to understand one in the language of another requires a translation. Unfortunately, there's no dictionary, no translator, no real correspondence between any two of those languages. Translation is impossible, and trying to refute one in the language of another is ungrammatical nonsense, however appealing it may seem at the time.

Choosing one of those claims to live by is neither more nor less than deciding which language you feel most comfortable speaking.



NAITA:

GTB:

P-c: 'Well said, but I would like to know if you agree or disagree with the original contention. So, I suspect, would NAITA! Or maybe - best of all - your off the wall response indicates what my old Mum always used to say: "A silly question deserves a silly answer." '


Sometimes a serious question deserves a silly answer. I am one of those who say 'everyone is right' (and in a stronger-than-subjective sense), but whether I'm positively bonkers is not a question I find interesting. Mind if I quote scripture?

from an insert at the bottom of page 40 in the Principia Discordia:


All statements are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense. A public service clarification by the Sri Syadasti School of Spiritual Wisdom, Wilmette.

The teachings of the Sri Syadasti School of Spiritual Wisdom are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense. Patamunzo Lingananda School of Higher Spiritual Wisdom, Skokie.


I think that the paradox contained in this psychedelic version of the Cretan Liar is fundamental to language, and is thrown into sharp relief when we try to talk about ultimate questions.

As for NATIA's original assertion, that people who say that everyone's right are bonkers, I don't know whether I'd bet any money on it, but my life is an act of faith that if he's right, it's better to be bonkers.



P-c: "I think the idea is that - to each of us - the only person or thing that *certainly* exists is ourselves. Thus *to me*, you may or may not exist. If you doubt your own existence, you have some interesting problems! Your therapist isn't Gag Halfrunt by any chance?"


(I owe my therapist money! Let's not bring him into it...)

You weren't addressing me here, P-c, but on behalf of all like-minded people:

While I do have some interesting problems, and some of them may be traceable to the idea that I don't exist, I still doubt my own existence. The whole concept of 'existence' and all that it entails is *loosely* applicable to reality, so far, but that does not mean that it matches up with the phenomena at the most fundamental level. If you really want to get to the bottom of things, taking into account as many valid perspecives as possible, then "does X exist?" isn't the question you'll find yourself asking, I don't think. More like "In what sense is assertion X true/false/meaningless/etc?"

As for 'I think, therefore I am', it just doesn't hold water.



GTB - "Religion was created initially to control people. Later it incorporated philosophy so it could more effectively be used to control people who'd read some philosophy." -

BtM: "Which came first, the chicken or the egg? I think religion came about as the result of cavemen trying to understand their surroundings, and as they only know about people, they personified the universe, and called it God. The control came later."


Ok, you're not the only one who called me out on this, Blatherskite. I suspect I was indulging in a fairly unsound generalization, trying to sound pithy.

First, I don't think that cavemen had religion, in the sense I'm really trying to address. They had beliefs, but it wasn't until society became more organized (after agriculture) that these beliefs were systematized into a structure that we'd recognize as *a* religion.

Once there was the dichotomy of priests vs followers, it became a matter of supply and demand. The followers supplied the manpower, and demanded answers to certain questions. The priests needed people to boss around, and were willing to supply answers. In a preliterate society, your answers don't have to be very sophisticated to control people, and they certainly don't have to be right, or philosopically rigorous!

As people have learned more and more, and been able to raise more and more sophisticated assaults on the answers provided by religion, some religions have incorporated philosophy (Aquinas' unholy union of The Bible and Aristotle, for example). Other religions don't feel the need to answer the objections raised by rationalists, or have different ways of answering.

P-c: "Is that a gratuitous assertion, or do you have any, er, evidence?"

Three paragraphs of unpacking, and I'm afraid it's still a gratuitous assertion.


GTB

Jem,

<>

I think the god concept is real and exists whether we want it to or not. But when we personify God and write books pretending that these are His words and create a whole religious and political structure around this - then yes, we are making God.

Where do the wild theories come from? Heck, just look around you.

az

*staggers up, panting*
I...(pant)...just...(pant)...got...(pant)...through...(pant)...three...(pant)...pages...(pant)...of...(pant)...backlog...(pant)...(pant)...(pant)...

Whew!
You've all been very busy

Welcome to the new members who, I suppose, are no longer new
I hope you've made yourselves at home, and from what I've read, it seems you have...

Lessee...

I found the whole thing on the 'fundamental truths' of atheism, agnosticism, and theism to be quite interesting because I could find some validity in each of them, and I'm not sure which one I'd chose. People do personify and make up stories about Spiritual Stuff (aka 'God') and it is impossible to know for sure the *exact* nature of 'God' and what was the last one? Whatever, I think I found some validity in that one, too (though it was probably the weakest, from my perspective).

One thing you have to be careful about, though, is the tendency to focus on monotheism. What about polytheism or pantheism? They're two completely different ways of looking at the world, and I think they should be considered as well.

I like to call myself a Pagan, but I'm not sure if I'd fall under the category of polytheist or pantheist, or both . Basically what I believe is that the *natural* universe is made up of *both* physical *and* spiritual stuff (and probably lots of other stuff, too) that interact with each other in their own happy way. None of this stuff (not even humans) is 'good' or 'evil' (btw, this is completely unrelated but I appreciated the compliment on my definition of 'Satan') and all of it can be used for whatever cause ('good' 'evil' or neutral) an individual may have.
People have been making up stories to try and explain things they have observed since the cavewomen came and saved the cavemen from extinction by making cavebabies. Believing in something, telling stories about it and bringing it to life, making it yours, etc - gives that something power, even if only in your own little bubble of reality (i.e. the God of the monotheists might have power in their lives but not in mine; my deities might have power in my life but not in anyone else's).
I'm not sure what my beliefs are about what happens after you die. I would like to think that there is something else, definitely not 'heaven' as defined by Catholicism. That's kind of scary; it seems completely stagnant, just always being happy. Much as I hate not being happy, I think it's somehow necessary if I'm gonna grow, and what's the point of existing if I'm not growing? Passing out of existence completely is equally scary, however.
In a book I have on Wicca the author talks about how 'the Great Goddess loves recycling souls' (this is not a direct quote). I'm not sure if I'm into that because it reminds me too much of the reason why I abandoned monotheism in the first place (personification of some being with power over my life ). But the basic idea can have a place in my personal religion - I'd like to think that after I die I'll take on another form within the universe - which I'd like to define as 'everything that exists' (So, if nothing truly exists, we're in trouble. Though, we don't exist. So I guess it doesn't matter? Oh, well. I'm going to assume that stuff exists, including me. ) *However* since we have absolutely no way of knowing what happens after we die, what's really important is how we live *this* life. Who was it that was talking about being a 'steward of the land'? I think that's a very good way to put it. I want to try to make the world a little bit better for as many people as possible before I leave it. If I can do that, I'll be able to move on (or cease to exist ) sans regret. I believe very strongly that everyone can make a difference in the world, and does make a difference in the world just by coming into it. (or coming in to eat, as I almost typed )

Anyways, I'm happy with my beliefs sans labels, but if anyone can help me figure out where I fall in terms of 'religious categorization' their assistance would be appreciated. In the mean time, there were a lot of really good points in your postings, everyone, and I wish I could address all of them but then the length of this posting would rival that of War and Peace - Congratulations to those who made it this far - and for non-drinkers, (to have with breakfast, I'd wager - good morning, UK!)

Blessings
~ Alex

I couldn't agree more strongly, az, which is why, when I wrote it, I used single commas: "...known and accepted 'objective' truths." It seemed preferable to going over the objective truth thing again. Those who have been here (in the FFFF) a little while have heard my presentation on the theme, er, a number of times. See my home page for more 'in-depth' coverage.

Nevertheless, it ought to be said that the misnomer "objective truth" has its uses, as people generally understand what you mean by it: so-called scientific, reasonable, rational, logical truth.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

[PC lays a cunning trap...]

<...when I'm talking about 'objective truth' I'm not talking about everyday physical things that can be easily proved by just looking at them.>

Oh [he says, with apparent innocence] you have objective perception, do you?

Seriously: this is a long-standing hobby-horse of mine. If you'd care to discuss it, az, perhaps you could bring it to my home page, so the old-timers don't have to suffer yet again!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

hi Pattern,

Will take up your offer to discuss this further on your personal page.

az