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

Hi P-C, if this is an almost universal reaction to what you're saying, then you're not expressing yourself very well, eh?

More pertinently, why should we even consider how many angels can dance on a pinhead? Surely the correct response is 'Stop talking out your a*$e, man!'

We have a concept which has no evidence for its existence, has no influence on the world that we can measure, makes no sense, and when someone says 'It's a lot of crap' in an authorative manner, people get upset.

So why should anyone give *any* credence to this outlandish philosophical nonsense, which is clearly the remnant of a primitive, delusional mindset, at all?

Hi Pedro!



I suppose so.



When I wrote <> I intended the questions to be seen as examples on which we shouldn't waste our time. Not making myself clear again?



Are you talking here about angels on a pinhead, or God?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

EB:

I wish you'd been in our lounge last night, when you could've explained this to my wife and myself, who both made the very mistake you refer to.



I suppose it must be.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Hey P-C.

The question of origins is a fascinating one, and well worth discussion IMO, and I suppose aliens visiting us would find our religions very quaint and endearing as a primitive way of understanding the world around us (while being appalled at the bigotry and intolerance etc).

But would they give them any credence? Short answer, no chance.

The point of the post was, why should we?

If I claim there are invisible aliens dancing on my leg as I type this, why should anyone take this seriously? So, P-C, what grounds do you think there are to take an idea seriously?

(PS, it was angels... and god)

Well let's consider religion as an example. Religion cannot be *proven* wrong (or right! ), *and* many millions of people believe. I think this means any member of the human race (which includes so many believers) must take the concept seriously, even if they subsequently reject it for their own purposes.



Would they believe in these religions themselves? Doubtful, IMO. Would they give them further consideration if they knew how many humans believed? Quite probably, IMO.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

<>

Aw, come on! How many Jews have to converted to Islam, Christianity or Hinduism because those faiths have more followers?! To turn the question round, how many humans would believe in the ant-like god jgq9;raf because some weirdo aliens did, when it could be shown that the interstellar aliens' view of this god had changed over the millennia to suit *their* purposes, (didn't do miracles in public kinda thang). OK, probably quite a few, but Uri Geller ain't poor, and neither was PT Barnum.

It seems we often confound form with substance, container with content.

The singular distinction between religion and science is not the difference in what is believed, but in the manner in which the belief is determined.

Religious belief arises due to faith. The faithful never question the origins of their belief, (which, ironically, derive solely from the works of humans!)

Religion does not tolerate, nor long survive, rigorous skepticism. It cannot, because at the root, religion relies upon unquestioning acceptance of one or more unprovable, untestable concepts.

Scientific belief results from questions, doubts, testing, enquiry etc., none of which have any place in the dogma of religion.

An 'active' atheist who actively believes there is no God would actually be thinking in a religious, rather than scientific manner. However, an 'active' atheist who states that there cannot be a god as defined by all/any god-believing religions would be making a scientifically testable statement.

Science and logic cannot disprove the existence of 'God', but can easily disprove the existence of any particular religion's definition of one.

We cannot, and probably will not, ever be able to prove or disprove the existence or otherwise of 'God', but it is certainly high time we put aside the asinine and dangerous superstitions that have so long plagued our sorry species.

... and I would really like to see Mr. Dawkins' program

Ah! Good timing - I'm just about off to bed. Sorry I didn't reply to your post yesterday - I got a bit sidetracked and, to be honest, I'm not sure what you meant!

The video's PAL, the laptop's got an S-VHS socket, so I assume I'll be able to sort something out between the two.

Hi Folks

Well I was pleasantly surprised at his measured tone in the programme. It was clear to me that he holds dear and is prepared to defend the scientific method against all comers.

He was particularly afronted by the American evangelist who challenged science and the scientific method. It was interesting that after that interview Dawkins and his crew were attacked (verbally threatened) by the man with a "get offa my land" attitude. This evangelist's approach was well compared to Macarthyite (sp?) dogma.

The Jewish Islamic convert was more telling in his words. "Your women", "your world", "your governments". make of this what you will.

Can't wait for the next one! We get to memes I think.

Got to go for a couple of days now...

turvy

Hi Pedro,



I didn't realise you meant 'how many aliens would *convert* to a human religion'. None, I suspect. But I'm sure they would try to understand it better when they found out that a huge majority of humans believe.

Taliesin, my friend, greetings!



You mean "there cannot be a God[...]" is falsifiable? It doesn't look like it to me.



You'll forgive me if I call your bluff on that one? [Is this the right forum to do this, or should we adjourn to the FFFF?]

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

You set 'em up; I'll knock 'em down.



On the other forum, perhaps, for the sake of the tender minds here..

(psst - this is the FFFF)

I'd not noticed that either.

P-C, isn't the argument that loadsa folk believe in a religion just another argument from authority? By implication, is creationism more true in Arkansas than it is in Europe?

Hi Pedro!



You initially asked "what grounds do you think there are to take an idea seriously?" I took that to refer to *considering* an idea, not to supporting or opposing it.

That loadsa folk believe is a good enough reason to give serious consideration to (the concept of) religion. It is no argument at all in favour of accepting or adopting a religion!



Yes, I know this is a joke, but the answer is "yes". In the real universe, creationism is no more than an idea in the minds of humans. So, given that more people in Arkansas believe than in Europe, it must be true that creationism is 'truer' there than here: Praise the Lord!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Just watched the programme - very interesting, and more measured than I was expecting.

Re Dawkins being guilty of the "I am right, you are wrong" attitude that he accuses his opponents of.

I think this misunderstands his position a bit. The evangelist accused him of arrogance and said that some of what Dawkins thought now would be right, and some wrong. I think Dawkins would accept that - the rational mind believes in the science of the time with a strength proportional to the evidence, but rational people (like the elderly scientist he mentioned who congratulated the researcher who disproved his long-held theory) change their minds as the evidence changes.

It would be arrogant of Dawkins to say that everything he thought (or that current science thinks) is correct but I interpreted his point as being that *scientific method* was the correct approach to understanding the univese, not adherence to ancient stories. Scientists don't have all the answers (as shown by disagreements), but they have the method.

Thanks for that, RoyMondo! It took me ages to realise this thread was in the FFFF, not the Forum, but I got there eventually!

Thus I need to say this:

Tal, I shifted our 'challenge' to the main FFFF thread; did you notice it?

Now: where am I? Who am I?

Pattern-chaser (probably )

"Who cares, wins"

After last night's programme, I finally realised my mistake. I'd thought they were about science, and Dawkins' atheist views were superfluous. I now realise it was a programme of anti-theist propaganda, using Dawkins' status as Public Representative of Science to bolster his anti-theist views. [I know he's an atheist as well, but it was the anti-theist stance that he presented most strongly.]

Interesting and annoying in more or less equal parts.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I haven't seen this program but am feeling the same way aout the book I'm currently reading: Science of the Discworld III; Darwin's Watch. I enjoyed the first two in the series, and although I would (reluctantly*) describe myself as atheist, I feel this book is 'preaching' an anti-theist line which has led me to question any bias in the earlier books.

Anyone else read it?

What am I missing? What's wrong with an anti-mythology stance? If adults choose to believe it that's their prerogative, but please let children grow up without the ignorance.

Some of the footage in last night's programme sickened me, especially the theatrical bigoted evangelising, and yet it's allowed to go in the name of religion. That *cannot* be right.

Hi Roymondo!



Where to start? OK, first: referring to religion as 'mythology' is surely () intended to insult religion, and by extension, those of us who are religious. Second: it is the clear moral duty of any/all parents to give their children the best of everything they can. Since no-one considers their own beliefs to be lacking or second-best, they will naturally pass them onto their children too. In doing so, they educate their children (in a particular way), and not doing so would leave them 'ignorant'. If some of those parents *are* passing 'wrong' information to their children, with the best of intentions, what do you want to do about it? Perhaps you could forbid anyone who disagrees with you from passing their beliefs on, or maybe you could try to prevent the from breeding in the first place? No, I know you didn't mean or intend that, but seriously: what *could* we do about parents who educate their children in a way we find unacceptable?



Me too, but see above.


Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"