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

This is the point.

An axiom is assumed to be true. There is no way to prove a statement is true without information input. Even the system of logical derivation is subject to this. So two things could, in theory, be equal to another thing (in value -- like lengths or volumes) but still not to each other. It is almost inconceivable but logic does not prohibit it. I can't think of a single logical system where this has not been the case, but one could almost certainly be created.

So your questioning of the axioms is a fundamental part of thinking about -- well, anything much, really.

So I'm supposed to ignore them and not understand them? In which case I understand perfectly.

Um ... not exactly, no. Basically if you don't understand an axiom:

- it hasn't been explained sufficiently or you haven't read it properly, or
- it may be wrong.

In the case of two quantities being equal if they're both equal to a third thing, imagine you get a stick, and you cut first one length of string to be the same length as the stick, and then another. You'd expect both strings to be the same length. This is what the axiom means: two things which are measured to be equal to a third thing would be measured to be equal to one another.

However, you can't *prove* it. (And experimentation doesn't count as proof, in this sense ....)

Oh I *see*! That makes a *lot* more sense!

[Finally, she gets it]

Good good ... a lot of the time these things are quite poor translations of the (doubtless brilliant) Greek originals. In my case, it was a shockingly bad paraphrase of a poor translation of ... and so on back to the whole sorry business of the creation of the Universe.

Time to go home ....

Definitely so. I'm suck here until my lift goes. But hey, more h2g2 time...

True enough ...

... until tomorrow, then?

Adeiu, mon ami...

I think you meant "au revoir" ... although I kind of get your point.

Yeah, well, I always did get my languages muddles up. I meant adeiu, as in Adeiu Sweet Amarylis (obscure madrigal reference) but I couldn't remember which language it was originally so Itacked some (no doubt incorrect) french on the end to make it sound posh.

Ah well ... it means "to God" so I suppose is appropriate for here

Oh does it? I never realised. Oh, I see now... think 'a' 'deiu' and it becomes clear!

Out of interest, have you thought about what it means to talk about "modern Christianity"? Does this imply a differentiation between beliefs, methods, a progression of ideas, or simply adaptation of the language and symbolism to a new language set? Or something else?

How have rigid rules ever fitted in?

*s to catch up with the backlog*

I know how that one feels!! It would seem that your temple is very popular!!

We've just got carried away, I think...

Modern Christianity. Hmm. Christianity has had to adapt to many changes, sometimes carrying on traditions, sometimes cutting away old things, rules and ideologies to try and fit to the Word better. Every era has made changes, sometimes for the good, sometimes for the bad, sometimes as an excuse to do something. (the Church I am confirmed to was created by a king who had a falling out with the Pope! (etc...)). The Word needs thinking about all the time, and adapting lifestyles to it. Christianity now is a long way from the (perhaps stylised) stuffiness of the Victorian pomp. I think that rigid rules were observed at a time when the Church ruled the roost. As always, please correct me if I'm wrong.

I suspect that what we're talking about here, then, is the political power of the church. If you believe in God and that humans haven't changed much in 2000 years, then ethics shouldn't have changed much, either ... with the exception of new situations which couldn't have existed then (nuclear war etc.). I suppose we do progress towards truth as a group but does truth change? Or do we change?

The truth doesn't change. What has changes it the way we have interpereted it and incorporated it into our lives. It's almost become a cliche but look at the crusades! That would be unthinkable now!

This is true ... so perhaps the rules are getting more rigid, in that our understanding of them is getting better.

So *we* think now. In 100 years time our ideas will probably seem antiquated and ridiculous. But we have to do what we think is right *now*.