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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A528121
This is actually my own entry. I'm hoping other people will read it and see where I'm coming from so that some real research into the beginings of religion can be done. It does contain some strong views on religion.

Hello,

Interesting start. Let me offer up a few of my humble suggestions. In general, the Edited Guide sticks to factual entries written in an objective style, sort of like an offbeat encyclopedia. This doesn't really mean that there is no room for philosophical speculation in the Guide, but it usually tries to impartially present several opinions in that regard. In addition, the Edited Guide tries to be objective, and it is unlikely your personal feelings about what religious path to follow would make it into the Edited Guide. It doesn't take a stance in that regard.

That said, I do think there are some interesting points. Some of the commonalities between world religions would make a fascinating article, especially since it might tie in to the migrations of ancient people. It's also true that there was a lot of editing on the Bible and a fair number of Gospels were cut when one group became ascendent over others (the Gnostics were out pretty quickly). That itself could be an interesting article. Some things in your article have also been covered elsewhere in the Guide already.

If you are interested, here are a few religious subjects in the Guide. To find more, just search for God:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A472033 What is God?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A293267 God and the Question of Evil
http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A291674 The Nag Hammadi Codices

I hope this constructive input helps, but let's see what other people say. In addition, even if your article isn't in the Edited Guide, it still remains among the articles in the Unedited Guide. This doesn't mean it's inferior. The Edited Guide is like an encyclopedia, but lots of good things aren't found in encylopedias (poetry, music, essays, fiction, etc.) Thanks for writing!

Yours,
Jake

Hello,

Let me clarify one more thing. Like an encyclopedia, the Edited Guide is concerned only really with the Knowable. Speculation about the nature of god falls pretty strictly under the Unknowable, so it's not really something to cover. On the other hand, common speculations about the unknowable (say, the philosophy of St. Augustine) are knowable, so those can be written about. The "What is God?" article is a prime example. It doesn't present a personal speculation about the nature of God but instead describes different viewpoints through the ages.

Yours,
Jake

I agree that perhaps your article should be written more as a factual observation rather than a rhetorical/factual observation. And in all honesty this is something that wouldn't be all that hard to change!

I saw that you've read the Celestine Prophecy. Why not cite his work, and use it to back the article? What about the council of nicea? I think that the council is even referenced in the guide.? So in other words, don't lose hope with the article, just re-organize

First let me say I'm an atheist. I think this entry is completely irrelevent to the guide. It's just the inner conflict of a Christian. It also contains misinformation (or should I say Myth-Information) in mentioning the existence of evidence to so-called miracles. Also, the way the missing link was used as a proof to the fact that there was a jump in the evolution is comletely wrong! We simply haven't found all the links yet, and maybe not all of the links had survived all these years. It doesn't prove anything. And there are many more theories about the nature of God than the two brought up here.
It's too Christian and too opinionated. Maybe it should be called "Christianity, What's the crack?", after it will be fixed to be more objective.

There seem to be two entries in this article. the first is personal opinion, and therefore unlikely to make it into the edited guide. the other is the potential for an entry on where the religions split, how we know that, historical reconstruction to get the uncensored bible, and that sort of thing. You have a passable start on making that sort of an entry, andit would make a valuable addition to the guide.

Just wanted to add my view as a non religious Jew in: You sound very passionate about your beliefes, but tend to forget that churches means community. I read an article that came up with the conclusions, that Jews are less likely to kill themselves than Christians, because their life evolve around their community. The power that religion have is in giving order to people's lives, and therefore meaning. You won't be able to rake it away from them. People need otherss to relate to and religion is a good thing to relate through. Non religious people have a problem, seeing that they have nothing to cling to. I don't think there IS hell, I don't believe that God actually cares what you eat and drink. But I do believe that people with faith and relations to others are stronger than me, in times of crisis.
Keep workin' on that entry- it's worth while!
Elly

The points related to God have already been covered in the Guide, no need to repeat the discussions (see also the attached conversations).

You seem to concentrate on religions which have /personalised/ Gods. There are others out there which contain beliefs in, or worship of the Sun, Mother Earth, the Big Snake, The Star Up There, or Nature itself.

IMHO, one basic purpose of rites in practising religions is to give a feeling of security. Knowing what comes next is a contrast to uncertainties in everyday life.

Another purpose is to soothe Gods which can be upset by sins. But that's only what you see at first glance. This line of thought serves to prevent mankind from becoming big headed / megalomaniac; and that's where I think the founders of religions have put in lots of wisdom. If an indian hunter apologises before he kills a deer then you can be sure he doesn't waste any of the flesh, nor kill merely for the fame of it, nor for the trophy which he can nail to the wall above the fireplace. Compare that to Safari hunting.

'Primitive' (ooh what a word!) religions convey some sense of respect for God's/Nature's creation which only lately has been paralleled by ecological education and green movements. Those 'primitive people' are /far/ ahead!

Just to throw in my tuppence

* just found another penny *

Religion also serves as a fall-back safety device if fate strikes too hard. Rather than being referred to a mental home (is that the right term? I'm talking of places where people get clothed in straitjackets and such), some people may better cope with their lifes if their religiosity provides support. Cheaper for taxpayers too!

Firstly, many thanks for all the views posted in response to this article. I had a feeling it would be too opinionated to be in the edited guide. However, I do have and would like the information to turn this round into a factual piece for the guide. Jake - Cheers mate, all that advice was much appreciated! In short, I shall take it away and turn it around so that it's more 'encyclopedic'. Watch this space because you've all helped to give me some damn good areas to cover.

Religion is cheaper to the country than mental homes?! NO WAY! As a person who lives in Israel I can tell you that it is absolutely not true! Israel is sort of a half-democracy half-theocracy state, and there actually are abrbitrary religous laws here (Jews can only marry Jews, everything to do with marriage, divorce, barrial, etc. is in the hands of the state's official religious institutes, and many many more) that cost A LOT of money to the country. Also, mental homes don't attract people and make themselves cost more and more, as apposed to religion, which seems to have made it its purpose.

This may well be true -- but I'm talking about religiosity, not the institution. You can believe in anything without joining the appropriate organisation, at no cost. The organisation may or may not come to your rescue, at a price or not. But the belief (perhaps as a substitute to lacking self-confidence) in itself is for free. And if this keeps somebody from going mad then it does safe taxpayers' money.

The beleif is only "for free" if it instills a culture of decreasing dependency. Unfortunately, I have yet to find a religion that comes anywhere close to this. Most of them actively foster dependency on the preist, the church, and anything else that they can profit from. At least with cults this is fairly above board and blatant

This is the problem with Religion though isn't it? The Church is an Institution and so it needs power / money to survive. Faith is for free and the church ISN'T required for any one to worship 'God'. Religion should cost the state nothing and be accesible to all. Without meaning to, the church has become an exclusive, almost 'members only' club; a result of hundreds of years of institutionism. If Jesus were to come back now this would never happen again because people nowadays can comprehend the incomprehensible whereas before it took the learned preist to explain things to the masses. Hence the control the Church was given. With the media the way it is nowadays (this site being a good example), people would be able to see things at first hand; albeit through a T.V screen, so theres no need for a 'qualified' person to tell us what did or didn't happen.

Religion is never for free. Religion was created as an insturment to gain money and political power. The religios rituals always include items that have to be used (Menorah, alter, etc.) or a "qualified" person (Rabbi, Priest, etc.) to conduct them properly. Same goes to marriage, circumcision, etc. Of course these items must be bought from the appropriate religios institution, and these "qualified" people must be payed for their service...
Church has become what it is without intending?! This is its purpose!
You said that in the old days the "learned" priests had to explain everything to the common people... where exactly did these priests aquire such scientific knowledge? From the scripts? That is a pile of hay after it went trough a bull. The priest's explanations were either based on ridiculous interpretations they made from the scripts, or just the good old "God maid it so" explanation.

I've now edited the article to a more 'fact based piece'. Any comments would be greatfully recieved. If it's still not right, then could someone let me know how to take it out of peer review so I can give it a serious overhaul?

Cheers

Claiming that religion is a cause for civilisation is too opinionated, and I personally think it's wrong. Religion is a leech on civilisation, holding it back. Surely you know of all the terrible things that have been done on behalf of religion, for example, the crusades. Science is pushing civilisation forward, while religion is holding it back. Throughout history and still today, many theist defy science.
About your allegedly contradicion of evolution - you said that there is a missing link in the chain, so it's not proved that we have evolved. Well, it's proved that everyting else in the chain has evolved. Do you clame that all the life and plants on earth had evolved but man alone was created? Ridiculous. We simply haven't found the missing link. It might have been destroyed so far.
Your God and alien "ultimatum" is too narrow and too opinionated.

I once again repeat and say that this entry is too Christian and too opinionated. I think it should not be on the edited guide at all, and if you want to keep it in the unedited guide, change the title to "Christianity, What's the Crack?"


THE GUIDE IS NOT AN INSTURMENT FOR MISSIONARIES!!!

A Perfecly Abnormal Guy

Fair enough. Can I just say though, that I am agreeing totally in what you say about religion being a root cause for many 'bad things'. Infact I have as big an issue with religion as anyone! All I'm trying to prove is that there is something in religion but that we've lost, forgoten or had the truths taken away from us. If we could re-discover these truths then we could discover alot about ourselves and thus evolution can take another step. That point about the 'missing link' is a fairly week one I know, but for the mean time it is still a theory. Theories are there to be disproved. If science and religion could settle their differences then maybe science and theology could come up with a few answers together.
All I'm trying to achieve is an open area of research, be it scientific or theological, about one of the oldest questions we ask: why are we here? Religion is a dodgy area I know, but at least it gets people talking!
Finally, you say that throughout history, many a theist has defied science. Can I just make the point that throughout history scientists have deified theology! Until they sort it out it's going to be like that forever.

Spangledman.

P.S. The title has changed.

Religion is one of the most difficult subjects to get information on. For a member of a religion, it is often difficult to maintain an objective view, so that when you study your own, your too favorable, another religion, too critical.
Also, this seems to be entirely a judeo-christian and muslim opinion of 'God'. Not only the opinion of 'God', but also the concept of a god. Eastern Religions have a different perspective. It also neglects the earth-based religions beliefs.
I am a religious studies major, and one of the first things you learn in any course is to leave your beliefs and preconceptions at the door. People who discuss religion tend to either be an enthusist for their religion, or someone who was spurned by religion.
One major problem, is people tend to take current religion and assume its always been like that. For an example, when Christianity started, they were expecting Christ to return any minute, literally. There was no organized church, it was based on communities. There were leaders, like there has to be in any group, just for order. It was gradual that an organized church began to develop.
Another problem is that people tend to ignore the society outside religion when discussing it. For instance, if a large portion of people cannot read, it is necessary to have an organized group of people well-versed in the religion to deliver it.
This is not to say that religion hasn't been corrupted, nor is it saying it is corrupt. Each religion has its greatness and its crimes. Persecuted and persecuting. The bad tends to overshadow the good, "Church comforts a sick man" doesn't make good news.
There is really too much information to be posted here, you can contact me for others.

I'm not convinced you've really focused on a single idea here - instead, you do seem to meander around the subject a bit. For example, you touch on:

- the origins of humanity
- religious history (selected)
- evidence for the bible
- religious war
- similarities amongst the big 3 monotheist religions
- the selection of gospels for the bible
- religion and war
- religion and control

You should concentrate on a single topic, and make that the focus of your entire entry - at the moment it's all a bit vague...

nitpicks follow:
--
> "Everybody has some form of faith"

Factually inaccurate - there are plenty of people who claim to have no form of faith.

> "Somehow, we suddenly came to being, as if evolution suddenly jumped forward a few steps. Until someone proves otherwise, this is the way it is."

Opinion. You can't take a single perspective and claim that "this is the way it is".

> "Personally my answer would be..."

... irrelevant. That's opinion, I'm afraid.

> "Whether God was an alien or a supreme being is irrelevant to ancient man, ones pretty much the same as the other, so this is another area of discussion entirely. Assume what you like for that area. Let's say that God is an alien, even now, if we met, he would still be the 'Supreme Being'!"

Huge disagreement - Gods tend to be omnipotent, aliens are just intelligent creatures like ourselves: they may be more powerful, but there's a difference between being more powerful, and being "supreme". Also, unlike Gods, aliens don't have special powers over afterlives and morality.

> "The pagan religion"

which one? There are lots of neo-pagan religions, and pagan generally just means non-xtian.

> "Muslim, Jewish, Islam and Christianity are basically the same thing."

Opinion - and there is huge disagreement on this point. Incidentally, Muslim is the name of a person who believes in Islam - they aren't two differing religions.

> "The Gospel according to St Thomas, for example, was never in the Bible that we read. Yet Thomas was the only Disciple to ever question Jesus."

That Gospel wasn't written by "Doubting Thomas", according to many theologers - its date was too late (though earlier than the other gospels).

> "But, his gospel was left out in the final edit! Why?"

And another theory from your conspiracy theory is that the Church preferred narrative gospels, due to the fashions of the time.

> "Once this can be achieved[proof that all religions are the same] then so can world peace."

And exactly what religion caused the Gulf War, say? Or the Vietnam War? Or the Falklands War? Or World War One or Two?