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

But please don't get annoyed with the word 'amusing.' The best things in life are amusing.

Annoyed? Pedantic? Moi?



Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Hi Eddie

Well for one most druids of my acquaintance do not, a) prance, and b) wear cloaks. Oh dear, two more ill-informed assumptions blown away.

If prancing and wearing cloaks were real motivators to hold the earth sacred and be prepared to fight for it (in a non-violent direct action way) then the environmental movement would be overrun with Live Action Roleplayers, The Sealed Knot, and no end of medieval recontructionists.

Strangely it is not. Can you not accept that it is because of what WE believe is a spiritual relationship with the land, that so many druids are highly active in environmentalism? It really doesn't matter if we are right or not, only that our beliefs inform our actions.

By the way not all druids are decent folk, we have the same proportion of prats as the general community I can assure you .

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\

How very disappointing!



To me, this is most of the justification for religion. It (generally) gives us moral guidance and a purpose/aim to follow as we live our lives. Still with this theme, I think one of the saddest aspects of life today is the number of people whose lives appear devoid of purpose.

Of course (Ed! ) one can certainly have purpose in one's life without religion. ... I just wouldn't recommend it!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

>

To me, this is most of the justification for religion. It (generally) gives us moral guidance and a purpose/aim to follow as we live our lives.<

But P-C, some people's beliefs inform actions like bombing women's clinics and flying airplanes into buildings. Does the fact that beliefs can give their adherents a purpose necessarily mean that they also give moral guidance?

Not that I mean to imly that the beliefs of Druids, and others, don't inform their actions in a positive way. I've certainly never encountered a Druid who frightened me, which is more than I can say for some christians.

As for having purpose in life without religion, my life has improved drmatically, as has my sense of purpose, now that I'm actually living this life knowing it's the only one I've got, as opposed to simply biding time till another self-proclaimed messiah shows up to take "his people" away.

I agree wholeheartedly with psychocandy. On one hand, we have to acknowledge that Druidry is Mostly Harmless. They convince themselves they're talking to invisible tree spirits, and as a result they perform a bunch of silly mystical rites, and fight to protect the trees. Mystical rites never hurt anyone, and most people can agree that natural resources are a good thing, and should be protected to some degree or other.

However, someone who believes that only the people who believe their particular set of nonsense beliefs are Good, and that everyone else is Evil, and anything that can be done to harm the Evil people is a Good thing and will allow them to have sex with virgins for the rest of eternity, is performing the same process as the Druid. Their blinkered beliefs inform their actions, and their actions are atrocious.

By the same token, Dubya's blinkered beliefs inform his actions, and his actions aren't any better than the terrorist's. Mysticism in general is dangerous, which is why the skeptic is still a bit concerned even when it's just a bunch of Druids chant around a glade. Our actions need to be better informed if we're going to have any chance of improving the human condition.

Hi All

"Oi you! Hippy! Get off moi henge before oi fetch ye a clump around lughole with moi staff!!" - Druid being frightening

Druidry is not mostly harmless, it is fact one of the most dangerous spiritual philosophies on the planet. We expect each person to:
a) Think for themselves,
b) Take responsibility for their actions, and
c) Fight for the planet.

Part (a), of course, being the most dangerous as it threatens about every established religion and political philosophy. Pure blasphemy/anarchy!

You talk about various religious people's blinkered beliefs being a force for hatred and danger, but how about atheists? In the twentieth century the greatest exponents of hatred and genocide were Josef Stalin and Mao Tse Tung. Two excellent examples of state-sponsored atheism if I ever saw them.

Nice to see these two advancing atheism as a positive force for humanity and the planet

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\

Communism is a religion, so they weren't atheists. More later--must leave computer now. Sorry.

Not *necessarily*, no, but it is generally true, I think. Of course, as you say, there are those whose overall beliefs - including their religion, if any - push them in a direction most of us would not recognise as 'positive'.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Hi Blatherskite!

I'd like to extend Math's point in reply:



I think the general response to your observation "Mysticism in general is dangerous" is that *beliefs* are dangerous, regardless of how we label them. You, like most of us, think that your own beliefs would best benefit the world and/or the human race if they were universally applied. OK, beliefs are dangerous, but imagine, if you can, a human with no beliefs....

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

>Nice to see these two advancing atheism as a positive force for humanity and the planet<

Hey, now, that's not exactly what I said. Truth be told, I'm hardly a "force" for anything, being only one person... I'm just a cog in a wheel. I try to live my life in ways that are beneficial for me, and others, and if that's not entirely possible, to at least make as little mess as I can. My point was merely (originally) that while I have no religious beliefs, I am not lacking in empathy, and I do have morals.

I want to say that I act according to my "conscience", though I don't know as though I have one. Is that a religious concept, or a philosophical one?

I actually don't think that beliefs are dangerous, in general. *Some* beliefs are dangerous, IMO. Some are wonderfully beneficial. Also my opinion. I guess what I was trying to get at is that "good" and "charitable" and "dangerous", etc, are all subjective based on what a particular individual or group believes to be good, charitable, dangerous, etc. I don't think my lack of beliefs makes me inherently "dangerous", but it also doesn't preclude any inherent "goodness", compassion or empathy I have. Does that makes any sense? I've had a LOT of coffee today and my mind's swirling...

Blatherskite put it very well: "Our actions need to be better informed if we're going to have any chance of improving the human condition."

One of the problems with labeling non-belief 'atheism' is it is not really an 'ism' at all. Most 'isms' consist of a set of rules, dogma, precepts etc, whereas atheism basically is simply a lack of belief in the existence of a god, or gods.

Atheism is not anti-religious. There are even religions, such as certain forms of Buddhism, which do not involve gods.

Atheism is not a political theory, movement or philosophy.

Most atheists would support the notion of thinking for oneself, because that is precisely why most of them are atheists.
Taking responsibility for ones actions seems to me an inevitable corollary to thinking for ones self.
Fighting for the planet also seems to me a logical consequence of the enlightened self-interest arising from an atheist perspective.

Regarding Stalin and Tse-tung... both these individuals were motivated far more by megalomania and other psychological defects than by atheist thought. In the case of Stalin, his pathological hatred of the Orthodox church was prompted by his childhood experiences at a seminary, and more practically his view that they were a competing power. I suspect Mao felt much the same toward the various religions in China. Neither dictator sponsored or were sponsored by state imposed atheism. Both imposed a rigid ideology, denounced non-approved art, literature and philosophy, actively discouraged individual enlightenment, and established personality cults that perversely resembled the religions they sought to oppress.

BTW, Hitler was a good Catholic

Humans generally believe various things, otherwise it would be rather difficult to function in our complex world. The problem is unconditional belief in the supernatural, which is a fair description of most religion, as opposed to conditional belief, which typically defines science and critical thought.
There are many humans who lack belief in the supernatural, and many of them are good, kind, decent human beings. Some of them are not.
There are also many good, kind, decent human beings who profess a religious belief, but very few of these unquestioningly follow the dogma of their sect, or are even aware of the gory details...
Most religions have proved themselves, historically, to be generally lethal. The so-called holy books, such as the Xian bible and Islam's koran, are full of hateful nonsense, belief in which causes human misery, and now endangers the entire planet.
I happily contemplate a world of humans who lack belief in such poison.

As for my claim that communism is a religion, let's see:

Certain texts claim absolute truth and can't be questioned, only interpreted.

Claims to explain events and predict the future in the context of universal truths.

Ideas and actions are judged by how they match those truths.

Good and evil are absolutely defined based on an unquestionable definition.

Seems to me there are some significant similarities.

P-C: <>

Agreed.

<>

Disagree. While my particular set of beliefs are far better informed than the average fundy, and therefore are far less harmful, there is still a lot of room for dangerous nonsense in my own head, too. But precious few resources are being spent on investigating and improving those beliefs while we're still wasting time combatting nutters who put forth creationism as if it were a science. Neither our knowledge nor the human condition improve at all if we're constantly fighting against going backwards.

As for Stalin and Mao, they just declared atheist states because they didn't like the competition.

Can I explore something else a little:

(Mathowlwch)
>>
a) Think for themselves,
b) Take responsibility for their actions, and
c) Fight for the planet.

a), sure, b) yeah...c) What do we mean by this? Are we saying that the planet is an entity with rights of its own? Wooly, spiritualist nonsense. And...while I'm on the subject...all this business about 'Living in balance with nature'. What in the name of dickens does this mean? To demonstrate its vapidity - just think for a moment: How might we objectively determine whether such a 'balance' with something called 'nature' has been achieved?

Now - before I'm patronised with reminders that humankind is on the verge of rendering its home uninhabitable...I accept that. The question then becomes what to do about it. The Gaia/spiritual/balance-of-nature mindset implies that there is some 'natural' state for humankind on earth...some Golden Age way of living where a (presumably much smaller) human population lives in a state of rural, ecological bliss. Well...guess what. It ain't gonna happen. Or, at least it ain't gonna happen without a drastic cull of the population (and presumably the poorest would be first in line). The solution would be as bad as the problem.

So what's the solution? To be honest, I haven't a freakin' clue. But let's start by understanding the question properly. Forget mysticist waffle about 'How do we live in harmony with our planet?' The question is 'How do we sustain a human population?' Now, OK...it's a given that we've brought about the current state of affairs through unbridled use of technology as we've poisoned the oceans and released billions of years of accumulated carbon into the atmosphere. But we didn't really know that at the time. It's only with hindsight that we understand that windmills would have been a better way to go. Arguably the whole sorry mess started when the Mesopotamians monkeyed with the 'balance of nature' with their new-fangled agriculture and irrigation, allowing the population to grow beyond the limits sustainable by hunting and gathering. But realistically...we are where we are, and we have to work out how to deal with the impending collapse. This will require some urgent thought on how best to use our (dirty word) technological resources to maximum effect. Yes, the solution will include an end to unsustainable energy use and not pouring PCPs into our rivers and equitable econonomies, etc. etc. But also, maybe...GM crops? Land reclamation? (Biodiverse salt marshes vs flood protection? Tricky decisions).

So...are Druids 'mostly harmless' (as I've said myself in the past)? Sure, they're well meaning folk who try their damnedest not to be part of the problem. And their woodland prancing is all very jolly (a bit disingenuous, Math, to tell me that Druids don't dress in robes, when you've previously mentioned that your own are green). But, frankly, any belief system which would have us make difficult decisions based on mystical concepts such as spirits or gods or Ahwen, or on meaningless concepts such as 'Mother Earth' or 'balance of nature' - well, those are just unhelpful. But the idea that we have to fight for 'The Planet' - as opposed to fight for a suitable planet for human habitation - *that's* dangerous mysticism.





>> BTW Hitler was a good Catholic.

Lapsed. In fact, he spoke of 'those scum' in the Vatican.

Yesterday I was reading about Pius XII's failure to denounce Hitler once the Holocaust was underway. The standard argument from the church is the it would have made things worse for the Jews. The historian's comment was 'How could it have been any worse?'

<> Ed

I don't know if there would be a huge difference in doing either one. If we're going to have long-term human civilisation (ie 10,000 years) then (I think) we will need a strong ecosystem. Or rather, hundreds of strong interlinking ecosystems. I agree there's no need for any spiritual dimension, but it *could* be useful if it gives people who can't/won't understand reasons for doing things a handle on why they should be done.

As for <>

I would think that salt marshes themselves would probably give flood protection, certainly against storm surges. Wasn't this one of the factors with Katrina, that development on the sea-shore accentuated the damage from flooding?

Still, I'd agree with Ed that this would be a decision for ecologists and economists, even if they dress funny.

I'm not saying this is wrong, BtM, but I wonder if we have sufficient information to be happy/confident that it's *right*?



Still on the same theme: are we sure we can correctly distinguish going backwards from simply going in a different direction?

Finally, if we are to retain our adaptability (which has served us so well as a species), should there not be pressure from individuals - according to their beliefs, whatever they are - to proceed in any/all other directions? Hopefully, a consensus will result in the 'best' way forward?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

*reminds self to use the smiley, and not rely on *

The point is -- good and evil do not inevitably result from either belief or non-belief. There are good atheists/theists and bad atheists/theists, and putting forth that faith inevitably makes humans more charitable is specious. The implication that atheists are naturally immoral, cruel and evil is silly.

My further point, which obviously I failed to make sufficiently clear, is that *unconditional* belief, or dogma, is *potentially* dangerous, because it can, and does, lead to erroneous assumptions about the nature of reality, and ones place in it. This is why people deliberately crash airliners into buildings, and why government leaders can be callous and cruel, even to their own people.

Good people are often good despite their faith, not necessarily because of it. They are good because it is in human nature to be good, because we evolved that way, not because of a questionable moral code developed by a tribe of ignorant, superstitious nomads.

That is why there are good atheists. They have a moral code derived from an evolved, genetically based feeling of connection with other beings. That is possibly what motivates a human, whether believer or non-believer, to rescue a kitten from a burning building. This feeling is not restricted to humans. Possibly this feeling of empathy is what motivated a gorilla in a zoo to cradle and protect a human child that fell into the gorilla's compound... but I digress..

Humans also have the ability to rationalize their good acts with the principle of enlightened self-interest, which has little or nothing to do with dogmatic belief.

Simply put, this means if I do something good for you, I believe you will be more likely to return the favor. I emphasize this has nothing to do with the *dogmatic* sense of belief, and everything to do with belief in the inherent goodness of human nature, and in the principle of reciprocity.

We can extend both the feeling of connection with other beings, and the rationale of enlightened self-interest, to include all life on the planet. While I don't quite feel empathy towards rocks and dirt, I do respect the creatures, including myself, that ultimately depend on rocks and dirt for survival. That is what I understand by the phrase, 'fighting for the planet'. Incidentally, it is also another reason why certain dogmatic beliefs are dangerous -- those beliefs that maintain our current reality is less important than that of the 'afterlife' in paradise, with or without 70 virgins

We do not require dogmatic belief in any supernatural agent in order to recognize the mistakes that have been made. On the contrary, it would make more sense to realize most of those mistakes were made under the burden of ignorance imposed by dogmatic religious belief.

Not only should there not be pressure from individual believers, but also there should be none from the religious organizations, including the Roman Catholic Church, Islam, and various Xian fundy groups.. etc.

Hi Ed

Oh boy do I hate people with good memories

Yes, mea culpa, I do own a green robe. This I use for special ceremonies where everyone is robed and it is a sign of respect to those who find a robe useful to 'get them in the mood'. It is also brought out for weddings, funerals and other rites of passing in our community. A bit like a vicar's dog collar really. I never use it in my own quiet celebrations. Ok, you can disengage smug mode now.

You speak of the fight for the planet as being one to render it suitable for human habitation. This shows an humanocentric viewpoint that I do not share. When you live as I do, with a perspective shift that allows me to see the importance of all living things, then humans are just one more species. It might be a shame if they were to become extinct, but it wouldn't be the end of the world.

I do believe that our population has reached unsustainable levels and that we do need to reduce it. The best way to do that is slowly by controlling our birthrate. A population maybe 5% of what we currently support is achievable in under two hundred years without bloodshed if we have a common purpose.

You have a great propensity for adding emotional (and some might say unnecessarily disrespectful) adjectives to descriptions of those who would fight for the planet, but who believe they do so from a spiritually-informed viewpoint. I do wonder why?

The environmental movement is full of us. Druids, witches, heathens, Gaia-ists, new-agers etc. In many cases we provide a significant proportion of the active membership. Strangely most people do not notice this because our belief is that we have no right to prosetylise, surely a desirabel strate of affairs. Does it matter that we fight for THE planet?

Why do consider this to be 'dangerous mysticism'? Our beliefs include a deep-rooted respect for the sanctity of life and a belief that each being must choose their own path. It is hardly the old christian 'convert or die' is it?

As for a 'Golden Age' viewpoint, well you will find it amongst the less well-informed members of our community (especially amongst celtic reconstructionists). However, as they grow they get a much more pragmatic view of history and human society. There will never be a golden age, however we believe that we can still climb out of this 'Dark Age' in which we presently labour.

If it helps just think of us as people with a Positive Mental Attitude.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\