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

>>"Oddly enough, some of them are quite nice people."

And some non-atheists aren't patronising...

Seriously, it does seem to me that exhaustive definitions of one or other god as a prerequisite to discussions aren't necessarily required, since it isn't always clear how much detail is necessary until confusion during debate becomes apparent.

Possibly a defined idea of what is being talked about is more useful to late joiners to a conversation, but then, if they have to read the backlog anyway to locate the definitions...

<>

Now *that* would make Hercules stable cleaning venture look like a day at the beach!


az

Gods are human constructs.

I share the atheist view that the grandiose claims and myths of the monotheists are flawed, irrelevant and dangerous.

I won't, however, abandon the notion that a unifying spirit exists, if not encompassing the whole universe, then the lifeforms therein. For the sake of argument, I'll include suns and planets as lifeforms.

Through experience, I'm a firm believer in mysticism. Were it not for that, my stance would be atheist.

An observation I'd like to make is that theoretical physicists, in their quest for the origin of the universe and the Grand Unified Theory, seem to exhibit something that suggests mysticism. When they agree on the nature of the creation event, they will be compelled to search for its cause. And this puts them in the realm of the myth-mongers, as there is no empirical evidence of a pre-universe state.

When a mystic opens his mouth and insists that his revelation is an all-encompassing Truth, there's usually trouble.

What do we really know about the human spirit?

I favour pantheism, or perhaps polytheism, as the concept allows for modes of awareness that transcend the polarised strictures of 'good' and 'evil'. The overwhelming majority of humans are possessed of a healthy moral sense, sometimes subverted, sometimes corrupted, but originally strong and true. The lie is that this moral sense needs to be taught.

Please excuse the ramblings; I'm under the influence of antihistamines at the moment.

Anyway, I get the feeling that most discussions tend to focus on particular points of deities in particular belief systems that people either connect with or dislike, along the lines of "I can't see a *compassionate* deity doing X, Y, Z", etc, or focus on seeming contradictions in what appears to be a certain religion's definitions of their god[s].

Even if a conversation started off along the lines of 'I believe/I don't believe', it seems almost guaranteed to get onto the things that do or don't cause people to believe, which would seem to generally be the claimed attributes of a particular deity, (or maybe someone's not seeing anything in the world that requires a divine explanation).

<..it does seem to me that exhaustive definitions of one or other god as a prerequisite to discussions aren't necessarily required, since it isn't always clear how much detail is necessary until confusion during debate becomes apparent>

Not necessarily exhaustive, a simple clarification will do.

It is also common practise in discussion to restate an initial position, upon request, as it is courtesy to indicate when that position has been replaced by another.

Confusion during debate is one thing, actually having one is another.


Differentiation of existing 'things', 'objects', 'entities', etc., requires distinction of attributes. To be individual, a thing must have at least one discernible distinguishing characteristic. This is how we exchange information -- indeed it is how our minds work -- by means of comparison and difference. 'Things' are distinct from all other 'things', because of at least one unique feature.

We experience 'things', 'objects', 'entities', etc., due to their various characteristic attributes, qualities -- what may be called 'referents' -- which are abstractions from the totality of unified reality.

If we imagine something, even an improbable something, we can only do so in terms of referents.

We may juxtapose the referents in unusual, unlikely ways, within the limits of their fundamental characteristics. For example, we can dream or imagine flying or floating by a simple act of will, because the referents of physical existence do not conflict with the referents of flying, but we cannot imagine a square circle, because of fundamental contradiction.


In non-religious discussion, we regularly use defined terms of reference. We could hardly get anywhere if we did not.

What is so different about religious discussion that we cannot bother to define and clarify our position, with even a single distinct god-characteristic, to the point where our position actually becomes one?

Perhaps a clear god-definition is not possible.

If anyone did ask for clarification of the god onder discussion in a particular debate, I reckon they could get some.
I'm not sure how much confiusion there has been in past discussions.

Occasionally, you might get the odd person saying 'Aha - but that doesn't apply to the idea of god[s] in religion X', though the feeling I get is that no-one was actually really confused, and people were either trying to keep a discussion on-track, trying to *move* the discussion onto religion X, or trying to score points off anyone failing to repeatedly clarify what they were talking about even when there wasn't any reasonable doubt what they were talking about.

When discussing morality, politics, etc, I'm not sure how rigidly defined anyone's position is expected to be in advance. I'm not sure why religions need to be treated much differently.

I do get the feeling that for some people, some kind of exposure to philosophy just makes them worry excessively about certainties or words to describe other words where other people get along fine without doing so to the same extent.

This is not about meaning in terms of semantics, or even syntax, but it is all about meaningfulness.

The reason many so-called discussions on the topics mentioned fail is precisely due to lack of clarity. At root may be simple ignorance, or unrevealed motive, or a fragmented mode of thought.

In any case, debates on morality, politics and so forth typically remain unresolved. Perhaps those who indulge in such disputes should make an effort to examine their assumptions, motivations, and rationales.

I'm not sure how 'rigid' comes into this, but it certainly does not seem unreasonable, at least to me, to expect at least an attempt to define a topical position.

Apparently, mine is the minority stance.

Of course, one may take the view that a 'word means precisely what I intend it to mean. No more, no less.' One could also shift that meaning about, to suit circumstance.

I suppose that for some people, some kind of exposure to philosophy just makes them worry not at all about meaningfulness. For examples, try reading some of the excruciatingly long-winded guff that passes for philosophy in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

>>"At root may be simple ignorance, or unrevealed motive, or a fragmented mode of thought."

So, according to you, *other* people are ignorant, scheming, or incapable of clear thought?

>>"This is not about meaning in terms of semantics, or even syntax, but it is all about meaningfulness."

If you're *that* pessimistic about other people, perhaps you'd be better just letting them get on with their dim and futile arguments without you?

It seems to me _some_ people in the world, present company excepted, certainly exhibit behavior suggesting lack of knowledge, hidden agendas, and/or compartmented thinking.

There is no intent to slur, nor to be pessimistic, simply a description, or a general recognition of observed behavior, and speculation regarding possible factors influencing those behaviors. Doubtless there are other factors, depending upon circumstance.

In situations involving dim/futile argument it generally seems best to let the thing continue along it's inconclusive aimless ramble. However, in conversations involving open minds, rational discussion, and valid premises, I am happy to contribute whatever I can.

In this discussion, for example, I was/am attempting to describe a formal argument which, simply expressed, claims:
1. god-talk is meaningless, therefore
2. the position claiming divine existence is itself invalid.

Is this not relevant, and is it not worthy of discussion?

<>

I'm with Edward on this one. The universe is *already* fully connected - that´s why its a "uni"verse. To postulate a "something" else" to make the connections is redundant.

<>

Or better, "The meaning of a word is its use in the language." This does at least give one the option of analysing how a word is being used, and thereby to arrive at something like a definition.

Noggin

Further...I'd say it's stretching the word 'god'. Once upon a time it meant one thing - a distinct controlling/creating entity. As this became unsustainable, the word was suborned to mean this inter-connected thingy that all the people who'd shown that the original god was unsustainable were already talking about.

Suborned? No - that's not the word. I'm having an aphasic day. What's the similar word I mean for 'nicked'?

No...suborned will do. The word was made to lie.

Yeah, suborned will do. Also misappropriate, maybe?

>a distinct controlling/creating entity<

Exactly what most people, (I think), mean when they use the 'god' word.

It's this vague personalization of transcendence that annoys me. Of course the universe is awesome/infinite/unknowable etc.. but there is no evidence whatsoever it was 'made' by a 'supernatural being' or 'beings'

Not only that, but all the rationalizations, definitions, and so-called proofs of theism remain invalid, because they fail the tests of logic, consistency, or coherence.

I think gods defy rationality because they were created by non-rational people. Subjectivity (evidenced by the emotional fee that mythical entities seem to charge) would seem to be a necessary stance when discussing them. From a purely logical view, gods in themselves are pointless and obfuscated from true understanding by their own myths. The only thing a myth can tell me, beyond the vague allegory, is how imaginative the narrator (mythmonger) is.

The origin of Myth is easy enough to figure out: once upon a time a wise child learned enough language to ask 'How?' and 'Why?', and the elders, not really knowing squat, went scurrying for some easy answers. Stories were told, and the most awesome story gained preeminence.

Well, that's fine and dandy...but in the modern age, theists - even those who claim to have abandoned the myths - continue to maintain that religion covers ground which mere rationality does not. I still haven't found a coherent explanation of what that ground is. I strongly suspect they're clinging to the myths but trying to pretend they spoke of 'truths' never intended by the original mythologisers.



Did anyone hear R4s Thought for the Day on Ascencion Thursday? Some eejit solemnly describing how strange it must have seemed for onlookers to see Christ ascending to the heavens. Cmoooom! I'm prepared to believe various explanations, such as 'It was a metaphor' or 'It was made up' or 'He nipped out the back and ran off with Audrey Tatou's great, great, great, great etc grandma. But...*literal* truth?



Ascencion Thursday in German is a great word: Himmelfahrtdonnerstag - Heaven Journey Thursday

Beam me up, Scotty!

I'm not brave enough to dispute that, Tal. Mainly because it seems to contain a lot of truth! However, aren't you being a bit demanding? What you've written about religious belief could apply to almost any human belief, don't you think?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I'm not sure demanding is the right term. But what if it is?

Literally speaking, belief in its conditional form is beneficial; enabling us in many ways.
One could argue human thought and action would be impossible without that form of belief.
But that benign form is coherent, consistent, and is supported by logic.

The other form is unconditional belief, which may not immediately be damaging or dangerous to others, but is never beneficial, on even an individual basis.
Unconditional belief is a closed system, coherent, logical and consistent only within its boundaries.
Unconditional belief refuses to go beyond those self-imposed boundaries.
Unconditional belief hides from truth, rather than revealing it.

In its more virulent form, unconditional belief distorts and poisons the mind.
Unconditional belief has led, historically, to human misery.

Finally, it seems to me unconditional belief is far more demanding than clarity of thought: It takes energy to hold on to a belief in the face of contrary evidence.

The difficulty is relinquishing a firmly held belief typically also means abandoning cherished ideas about our selves.
That, I admit, may be somewhat demanding.

Hi P-c,

"What you've written about religious belief could apply to almost any human belief, don't you think?"

Really? Almost ANY human belief would fail the tests of logic, consistency or coherence?

Given that we accept a set of first principles, in the manner of Euclid, such as 'the universe exists in pretty much the form it appears to be and the evidence of our senses (and instrumentation) is as trustworthy as we presume it to be (i.e. not perfect but not hugely misleading)', what human beliefs other than religious ones would fail those tests?

F