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

>> How extraordinary must a claim be before we doubt... <<

It will depend on cultural bias. That's why basic rituals are necessary; so that we share the lowest common level of tolerance and call it a mutual understanding of what's right and wrong.

All an individual can hope for is a higher threshold of patience for (and from) the web of dreams and deceits that pass for reality.


~jwf~

I second the points made and implied in the previos two posts.

Only another science update - but I found this:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/church_venter09/church_venter09_index.html

Six-hours worth of video (!) - a lecture series - on Synthetic Genomics given by dr's
George Church and Craig Venter from 24th of July, 2009.

Just an alternative if you want to get away from the who said what to who when and why.

>Define 'normal'< Tal

It's a local culture colloquial tongue in cheek term used in these parts... It's meaning can only be ascertained via context, as so often with colloquialisms. Can't give an exact defintion cos I don't think the OED has yet caught up...and by the time they do...it'll probably already have dropped from usage again.

You're right about that Effers. But don't worry, it's entirely normal.

Gif

Clive, we really _do_ read the same websites..

I downloaded all six hours, so I can watch w/o the inevitable online video stutters I get around here.

I watched most of the first part. The sound quality is a bit poor, and there's an occasional, annoying static crackle, so be careful with the volume level, especially if you use headphones

~~~

Effers, 'normal' is one of those contextual thingys!

The Christian Mafia

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zr69bhccD-Q

I read it some time ago. A very enlightening and frightening book. We may think the Enlightenment has had a lasting influence on the world, but the Middle Ages really haven't ended.

Taliesin: That's a creepy story. I knew such thoughts came up among believers, but I did not think they were dogma to politicians of any magnitude.

anhaga: I believe with you that it is reasonable to fear the worst things, yet I am pretty confident that the Enlightenment sunk in deeply enough. Imagining the possibility that a future may exist where people who believe contrary to a specific religion are forced to clam up or else face extreme consequences is probably overeacting to the message of fools who only have a fraction of the power they require (in most places--I should say that I'm glad I live in the place I do).

Tal,

Last night through, I watched Feynman lecture on the character of physical law:

http://research.microsoft.com/apps/tools/tuva/#data=4%7C0%7C%7C%7C%7C

Two thoughts arose:

1) when he said we didn't truly understand gravity at the quantum level - nothing's changed.

2) When discussing star formation and the comparison between slides was essentially 'see this blob?' see this blob is now a little bigger?') how absent was any photo of nebulae from The Hubble.


Nevertheless it was a brilliant lecture - 5 more to go! - and I learnt a little bit more about what the inverse square law actually means.

interesting interview in the 60 seconds bit in the Metro paper (daily mail lite ) with a scientist who's come over all 'genesis is scientifically accurate'

Love the questions

http://www.metro.co.uk/fame/interviews/article.html?Dr_Andrew_Parker:_The_Bible_got_everything_right&in_article_id=713776&in_page_id=11

in one answer:
"Not only is the sequence of events in Genesis scientifically correct but some of the events themselves are really quite precise, which would have been impossible for a human to know at that time"

then further on
"The first page of the Bible doesn’t spell out the eye but it doesn’t spell out any of the science in detail."

really goes for him!

Anyway, back to normal programming

That man is a biologist?

Boy, I certainly hope he isn;t doing any research based on his level of required evidence.

Each answer just seems to be an 'um' well maybe...well, the authors will have made it 'more accessible' for the reader'.

And the clincher:

"You criticise atheism because you think it’s disturbing to believe there’s no God or heaven. Just because those things might be comforting doesn’t make them true, does it?


No. But what I’m saying is that if the evidence doesn’t necessarily point one way or another, perhaps we’re better off with religion."

Basically, he can't cope with stuff not being nice and would preer to beleive in the fluffy bunny god even if it's not true.

i can see what he has done

he has given religion an IN in the book so tyhe religious will buy it cos he's a 'good guy' and atheists will buy it to slate it and he will end up with a load of cash from both sides, and probably won't upset either side too much

its a buy the book scam type statement/interview

"i have gathered along the convos here that mithras was absorbed into christianity so that the emporor could unite all the religions under one banner and strengthen the empire under him in a time where it seemed likely to fragment"

To our modern (post-enlightenment) minds this seems entirely realistic. But if you learn a lot more about the Roman empire then it largely falls apart. For a start, the empire's political problems were not down to its multitude of religions (these weren't actually a weakness, quite the opposite since Roman tolerance of other cultures made it much much easier for them to annex states into their empire) but political rivalries and the inevitable problems of governing such a huge land empire from a central point. Constantine's adoption of Christianity seems to have been less about politics and more because he took (as his superstitious, Roman mind saw it) a massive risk by incurring Jupiter's wrath by painting Christian symbols on his shields and yet subsequently won the battle. Romans thought pretty-much everything was decided by fate and the Gods and the message will have been pretty clear - the Christian God was stronger than the old Gods.

Also, many Romans were actually afraid of Christianity because of its outspoken refusal to accept other faiths (including the traditional Roman faith) and the very stringent morality of the early Christians. Constantine and his successors were nothing so much as regime change, the temples were turned into churches, the SPQR's were replaced by Christian XP's, pagans were removed from positions of power and replaced by previously-persecuted Christians. This wasn't the sort of thing a ruler hoping for pan-imperial unity would do.

More to the point, Christianity didn't bring the empire under "one banner" (it already had that, even with all the revolts and usurpations few Roman citizens wanted to stop being Romans, most "conquered provinces" were completely Romanised and completely integrated) its troubles simply continued and Christianity probably weakened the state from within since the pagan values which had built the empire (self-interest, warrior virtue, admiration of strength and wealth) were being replaced by the self-denying piety of Christianity* and Christianity's pre-occupation with persecuting other faiths (and eventually other Christians through the Church's attacking of "heresies") lead to internal strife.

In fact (and I might be wrong here) I think Gibbon blamed the fall of the empire largely on its adoption of Christianity for these reasons.

*Although even back then political and social realities meant that Christianised Romans were finding excuses to kill and become obscenely wealthy and yet still be good Christians.

My favourite bit comes less than half-way through this 30 second interview:

>Um, OK. I’ll probably have a look at this in more detail again.

Boy, he must have *really* thought his theory through...

Gif

Oops, 60 second interview. His theory is twice as robust as I gave him credit for.

Gif

"His theory is twice as robust as I gave him credit for."

So to add to your other accolades you can now take 'Master of the Back Handed Compliment'

Re EO forms, as someone who works in the exciting world of HR I can tell you that sexual orientation and religious affiliation are both standard questions on our forms and have been for some time (although our little part of the UK has its own reasons for being interested in religious affiliation and people will often be ascribed "perceived RC/perceived P" if they deny any affiliation - but this is more to do with community identification...). It also states on our forms that you can opt out of answering the sexual orientation question if you wish.
EO forms are not supposed to be included with application forms during the recruitment process (in fact in our organisation if you're not working in EO you never see them!) and the only time we're allowed to find out anything on them is when we run a check on interview panels to make sure they are religiously balanced (we can usually figure out on our own if they are gender-balanced and we don't have to check anything else).
AFAIK schools are allowed to discriminate on the basis of 'protecting their ethos' or something like it but everyone else has to stick very rigidly to being able to prove that they had proper qualification-type reasons for not appointing someone.

Can I throw a different aspect into the debating chamber?

Interventionists god(s).

This came about when I was hoping to see the eclipse in China recently: as an athiest it would have been hypocritical of me to pray for good weather, so I asked my Christian friend to do so. She said she couldn't as God was non-interventionist, but she did ask him to bless us (and lo and behold there at our next destination were gin AND tonic And lemons, Praise be!)

But we were being shown Buddhist temples with various different buddhas (buddhae?) to which you could pray for health, long life, business success, family etc etc.

So. The Christian god won't do something just because you ask him to: man's main purpose is just to glorify Him.

But other religions do incorporate a degree of asking and ye shall receiving.

Discuss.