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

Hi Ben, and a belated Happy New Year,

I've kept a loose eye (is there such a thing) on the Belief project since Mina first told me about it in October, but I thought it best to comment once the bulk of the work was in for fear of maybe putting people off because of Italic interference. It looks to be a cracking project that's been well-steered from the very beginning, which I'm sure is why your team's been able to amass a lot of work in such a relatively short period of time.

I've got a few comments/suggestions here which are offered from an Edited Guide point of view.


1. It'd be good to link each one. This can be done either by providing links for 'Further Reading' at the bottom, or by linking entries in series (ie, 'The evolutionary function of belief' links to 'Why are beliefs held so dearly?' which links to 'The biological basis of belief' ... and so on). As we don't link to unedited Entries, the entries won't be able to link back to the cover page of the project, so one thing you might want to consider is adding all the necessary links to one of the entries and counting that as your first, or hub, entry, around which all the others appear. I know you've linked some of them, but a consistent method of linking either way will, I think, make it easier for people to browse through.

2. 'Will the Social Sciences sell its soul or lose its balls?' - as a title it doesn't really sit comfortably in the Edited Guide. I'd suggest something along the lines of 'The Social Sciences and Belief' - a simple, clear title that says what it does on the tin without being contentious too early.

3. 'The evolutionary function of belief' - good entry, though a few footnotes or parenthesised definitions of some of the words and references wouldn't go amiss, eg, 'numinescence' (the possession of a strong spiritual quality)', '(former American President) John F Kennedy)' 'Margaret Thatcher' (link to A288407). It's terrifying, but the further away we get from a generation that's historically aware, the more likely the question 'who's Kennedy' will be asked. While I don't think we should dumb down, a little helpful nudge in the right direction never hurt anyone.

I *love* the bit about Viktor Frankle, by the way. Really good example of what the project's all about, really.

4. 'Why are beliefs held so dearly?' - a few first-person references here that would read better if they were reworded slightly. Not entirely sure the use of the word 'dick-head' is necessary when the essence of the sentence is established earlier on in that insult. It might be possible for the graphic there to be illustrated with a blob. No promises though (remind us nearer the time and I'll see what can be done), but it shouldn't be too difficult.

5. 'The biological basis of belief' - entirely your call, but knowing how some people feel about the use of exclusive words, saying 'Man is an animal' might sidetrack readers into a separate debate.

6. 'Musings on a theme of belief' is a bit vague. Would 'Defining terms of Belief' be too limiting? It does seem to be exactly that though, a straightforward (and informative) entry on definitions.

7. 'Brainwashed' - the title is a little melodramatic - the subtitle would serve the entry much better if it were made its title. Perhaps it could be broken up a little by headers and subheaders, but those criticisms aside it's a strong entry.

8. Two entries 'The evolutionary function of belief' and 'The Evolution of Faith' have very similar titles which, in the Search engine, might get confused (especially since they're actually examining different elements of faith), so perhaps one of them could have a name-change that outlines the different topics in a less superficially confusing manner?

9. 'The perceived dichotomy between sexuality and spirituality' - a number of comments here. Long titles tend to dilute the impact of an entry, so I'd suggest making this much snappier. 'Sexuality and Spirituality' still accurately covers the basics, and then it's up to the intro to qualify this (which it already does very well). 'This month1, Dr. Rowan Williams takes over' would be less prone to becoming outdated if it were written as: 'In December, 2002, Dr. Rowan Williams took over...'

I'd challenge the assertion that 'To most people sexuality is the antithesis of spirituality', but only in that it's probably truer to say that 'Thanks to the assertions of many organised religions, A common Western approach to modern spirituality is that it should be kept separate from sexuality', especially because the next section then goes into detail about how this wasn't always the case and gives some splendid examples.

10. Although I hope your in-progress entries do make it too (great topics for discussion, and one of them looks on its way to completion), I think you're wise to put the stake in the ground and say 'no more from this point'. But if Noggin in particular could be given a gentle push to finish that one off, I think it could be that little bit extra that helps balance out an already fairly even project.

I'd love to have had the time to contribute to this, maybe with 'Science as Religion' as I'm convinced that some people's insistence on 'science' is as much an act of faith as others' clinging to Holy Books. Both rely on the wisdom of others and a belief that there is an order to existence that we're not in full control of, and both produce moderates, evangelists and raving bigots in about the same proportions. Sadly, I'm not able to do the topic justice like these entries have.

I think this already shows signs of being a superb project that should get people talking. Well done, and if there's anything else you need help with, don't hesitate to holler.

Jims

Blimey - what a fabulous response!

I will point all the appropriate people in the direction of your comments, and make the updates to my own entries myself, of course.

Are you sure we cannot persuade you to draft up an entry on science and belief? It is one of the gaps in the project and an important one.

I really appreciate the amount of time and thought that has gone into this answer very much indeed. I am truly impressed, and grateful.

Many thanks

B

Ben, this may be stupid of me , but has my proposed entry "Science as religion" (A861347) got lost? Jimster refered to the title as though it needed writing, and then you asked him "Are you sure we cannot persuade you to draft up an entry on science and belief?" Haven't I done just that? Or am I just getting confused?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Jim: I've changed the title of my proposed entry, according to your item 6. Thanks for the help and constructive comments, Jim.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

B

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I wouldn't worry, Pattern-chaser - I suspect that's the sign of a good recruiter there rather than a sleight on yourself

I think I'd be better leaving philosophy to the philosophers. I'll just stick to TV and films if that's okay. But really, well done all round!

Jims

A good recruiter but a bad follower-upper, I am afraid. Ever tried herding cats?

Your entry had slipped below my radar P-C - probably because I got the message about it when I was in 'will do that later' mode.

I have added it to the Project Page.

Thanks, both.

B

'Herding cats'??

Brilliant!

Hi Jim, I've made the title change you suggested to the entry on "Joining and Leaving a Minority Religon" and also added some subheaders. If someone can suggest some extra sub headers I'll be more than happy to add them.

for your kind words

<'Herding cats'?? Brilliant!>

I first heard it - quite some time ago - in the context of "managing programmers is like trying to herd cats".

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Oh - ain't *that* the truth!



B

Jimster said

Not at all! Philosophy is fun, and it's for everyone, not just the Guild of Philosophers, Seers and Sages!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Ta anyway, but I suspect it's like swimming - if you get out of your depth it stops being fun.

Besides, I'm a simple soul. I'm happy with my tacky BBC spaceships and regularly regurgitated soap plotlines.

Jimster, can you take a look at Wotchit's entry A865488 - it is very much in the first person, and I think it might be hard to re-write any other way. I think it would sit ok in the Project, (and I say why in the WW thread here: F57153?thread=220984&post=2833667#p2833667) but we need an Official Editorial Decision on this one.

Many thanks

B

Just to save duplication, I'll answer this one over on the WW thread (but the essence of my reply is it's not going to need major rewriting to make it fit in with the general Edited Guide style )

Jim

Thanks.

See you over there.

B

(Jimster, it is Sunday afternoon, tell me you are not on-line right now....!)

I have just put in an additional entry on the Stages of Belief. A937767 It is a perfectly normal EG standard entry, and I have updated the project page accordingly.

I am hoping that Blatherskite the Mugwump, Noggin the Nog and Zagreb will have finished their entries by this weekend. If not - well that is why I dropped the bar on the 31st.

Ste and I are polishing our joint entry on the Evolution of Faith, (or whatever it is called at the moment), and a personal friend of mine is putting together something on the origins of religion from an historic and archaeological point of view.

I don't think any of this needs your specific attention at the moment, (especially considering it is Sunday!) You addressed all my concerns about individual posts and the first person earlier on.

Thanks

B

You're absolutely right, I'm never online on a Sunday afternoon

I'll stay subscribed to this Conversation (and the other one I dipped into) until you're done with your final edits on the project. Are there any other Conversations I should be listening in on, or are you happy to keep this one as an update thread?

Jims
(Sulking at home with a broken toe )

Ouch! How did that happen, then? And how long are you off for?

I'll keep you posted here, Jims, though there are a lot of conversations rattling around this project, it is probably simplest if I update you here.

All the best

B