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

AK,

Well, that's true enough. If Si9mon left the rest of us would probably all just end up agreeing with each other. So perhaps this is *why* he is here?

az

Maybe it works the other way around. If you all left, i would have nothing to talk about, (and, no-one to say nothing to) so perhaps that is why you are here.

No-one to say nothing to?

az the English teacher

You can say nothing to me anytime, as long as I can say something to you all the time.

As it is, and to confuse things more, i do have someone to say nothing to, but not nothing to say to them.

I have nothing to say in response to that comment, and so, I came up with this, which flatly contradicts the first part of this statement.

So you had nothing to say, someone to say nothing to, yet you chose to not say nothing to someone?

Don't look at me; Im saying nothing.

F

To drift back on topic:

Della posted:

"Christians are allowed to believe in evolution, and most of us do. Evolution does not preclude God at all!"

Which is interesting because evolution kind of does away with the Adam and Eve story. As I posted on another thread: with no Adam and Eve there's no original sin and no original sin means God had no need to send his son as saviour. Even if he still did; the point is there was no NEED.

Doesn't this rather interfere with the whole basis of Christian teaching?

F

<>
Only if one insists (as some Christians, and many atheists insist that Christians do, or must...)on taking it literally! I prefer to think of it as what Professor Tolkien referred to as 'true myth', myth in the literary sense of the word. As far back at the 3rd century AD Origen and his like, were aware of the layers of interpretation, and did not take Adam and Eve literally.

The problem for any non-fundamentalist Christian however, is this: once you start pick and choose which bits to believe are actually reporting fact and which are merely charming fairy stories, where do you draw the line? And what gives you the authority to draw a line anyway? Who are you to say what God meant?

Della,

"As far back at the 3rd century AD Origen and his like, were aware of the layers of interpretation, and did not take Adam and Eve literally."

And by extrapolation neither did the senior officials of the Catholic Church; not necessarily excluding the Pope.

So if you don't take the story literally where do you sit with the concept of original sin?

Doesn't this suggest a certain hypocrisy within the Church?

F

<>
No, it doesn't. Taking Genesis literally is something confined to the USA from the 18th century onwards. The medieval Catholic church didn't take it literally - 'Adam and Eve' were accepted as a "Just So" story which explained the observed facts - human 'fallen' nature. (Just as the legend of Maui explains the observed fact - the North Island of NZ!)
Hans Kung says in his history of Christian thought, that St Augustine was guilty of conclusion jumping in his use of the Latin Scriptures and not the Greek, and that the whole original sin edifice he erected is built on a false interpretation.
The five strands of Calvinist thought, including total depravity, etc have never been accepted by the church as a whole anyway. It's not monolithic any more than Islam, Judaism or Buddhism all of which can be subdivided into 'denominations' just as Christianity is divided. (Sunni, Shi'ite), (Reform, Orthodox)(Protestant, Catholic, Coptic, Nestorian, Greek/Russians Orthodox.)

Once you start pick and choose which bits to believe are actually reporting fact and which are merely, and I quote, "Just so stories", where do you draw the line? Was the life of Jesus a "Just so story"? What about Solomon? Abraham? Noah?

And what gives you the authority to draw a line anyway? Who are you to say what God meant?

<>

Well, quite. Surely the entire bible should be taken either literally or as allegory, not just bits of it. But it seems that many christians go through it as if it were a pick 'n mix selection of stories, not the Holy Word of God.

If the christian God exists, then why isn't His book being taken literally by His so-called followers? If the book is a collection of allegorical tales, then why is one of the mythological characters in it being worshipped as if it were real?

az

A few years ago a friend of mine I'll call him John because that's his name. Was asked by his girlfirend of the time but not for much longer, "Why do you drink so much"?
John paused to think briefly, he may have been able to answer automatically ordinarily but it was the morning after a particularly heavy Friday evening to Saturday night session. "Because I like it"

John like most people was aware of the dangers to his health, maybe not all of them but enough of the well publicised ones to cotton on that drinking the way we do somtimes is bad for you. Otherwise he was a fairly healthy guy, tried not to smoke too much and took plenty of exercise. He was obviously attracted to the girlfriend and cared for her to a certain degree but her growing insistance that he drink less ensured she soon became an ex-girlfriend.

I think of drinkers like John (and myself) in a similar way to a lot of "christians" they're not by any stretch a thick bunch of people, although some are but what group doesnt have its share of the intellectually challenged. What makes us similar is not that we cant understand the facts its that we just ignore them. We are linked by the fact that we do what we do because we like it that way. I wont drink heavily before most games, some games I'll abstain completly the night before, after is a different matter though. We both cherry pick our behaviour and rules, we admire or look down on those who do things differently to us, lightweights and heretics, the pious and the pie-eyed.

What seperates drinkers from the christians on the whole is that we admit that our behaviour is based soley on our preferences. If I call someone a lightweight for drinking breezers I do so because that is the way I see things I do not select a little bit of archane literature to back myself up and ignore excerts from the same book that contradict what I say or do. Its all "Because I like it" Despite so many protestations and demonstrations of bravery christians will always fall back on a few discriminantly chosen words to back up everything even if what they do today contradicts what they said yesterday.

Hi Blicky,

I can see the analogy although there is a weakness in it so I'd like to expand on it a bit.

We can cherry pick our behaviour because 'we like it' without it apearing totally irrational. We can eat healthily, exercise, take vitamins and yet still smoke; simply because we like most or all of those activities.

Cherry picking our beliefs is another matter. Presumably we believe something because we think it is true. Tautology, no? Many people however seem able to believe things which clearly are mutually contradictory. It's this aspect which strikes me as peculiar.

Most people (sweeping generalisation but bear with me) will admit a belief in God but not in fairies. There are many books extolling the existence of fairies; some of sufficient antiquity and/or written by highly respected people to lend them an air of authority. There are well documented eyewitness reports and even photographs.
When asked to justify their beliefs this is a typical conversation:
"Why don't you believe in fairies?"
"Oh, that's just silly; a story for children."
"Then why do you believe in God?"
"Because the Bible tells me that there is one."
"Is the Bible a reliable source of the facts?"
"Of course; it is the Word of God."
"That's obviously a circular argument; try again."
"There are eyewitness accounts and corroborating evidence."
"Most of the 'eyewitnesses' weren't even there and none of them wrote the story up until 30 years after the event. There is nothing in historical literature to corroborate anything of significance while there is plenty of evidence to suggest much of what is described in the Bible is plainly absurd. Even members of your own faith choose to treat much of it as allegorical. So why is the Bible a more reliable source than all these eyewitness accounts of fairies then?"
"Because it's the Word of God."

Right. These are highly rational people with responsible jobs. (not excluding the clergy). They can make business and personal decisions of the highest order. They talk with clarity and authority. Some of them are even scientists. Yet they base a serious and life altering belief on the most tenuous of evidence; contradicted by experience at almost every turn. Presumably because they like it. It would help a lot if they just admitted as much.

God is rapidly disappearing into the gaps left by what science can't explain. From my experience on this site many people are adjusting their beliefs to account for this. The Kalam argument for the existence of God falls into this category. Believers in Kalam have all but given up on the traditional beliefs but want to hang onto a deity with some modicum of logic. That's fine by me although I don't agree with them. At some point there will be no room left even for this explanation (I'm conficent of this - I could be wrong). What then? Does everyone say "Oh, yeah, OK there is no god"? Somehow I doubt it - there will still be believers: because they like it.

Thanks Blicky; you made a valuable point. Go easy on the drink.

F

Blicky,



Did you consider the possibility that the reason you "call someone a lightweight for drinking breezers" might not in fact be based on your preferences but rather on the preferences of the companies advertising competing brands of alchohol and resulting peer pressure?

just a thought!