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

Hello and welcome: Ian the GM.

You will be pleased to know this is not a GM free zone.

Even as an atheist I'm prepared to concede the possible, despite inconclusive evidence, existence of Jammy Donuts. I must however point out that my copy of the Great (big) Book indicates the correct spelling to be 'doughnuts'.

F

Conceding his existence regardless of the evidence being inconclusive is the sort of faith the great god JD is looking for.

Welcome to the church my son.

The Great Book in talking of doughnuts is of course referring to the Antinut, embodiment of all that is evil. The give away is the addition of ugh to the prity of donut. Do not worship at this shrine on peril of losing your soul!

I likes donuts.

An interesting Guardian article on the views of David Sloan Wilson:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/interview/story/0,12982,1004403,00.html

For those who can't be bothered, here's the final paragraph. [After you've read it, I hope you'll go and read the original anyway! ]



Surely we have some thoughts to offer on this, a foray into our very own territory?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Hi P-c,

That looks interesting. I can't go to the link from here but I'll have a look at it later. Thanks

It suggests an evolutionary advantage, on a societal level, to religious followers compared to non-religious groups. I have a sneaking sympathy for the idea I must admit but I need to think it over a bit before declaring my support.

F

Welcome, Ian!


In reply to Fnord's question about the opposite of 1, I'd have to say, as a mathematician, that the opposite of 1 is either -1 or 1 itself, depending whether you're talking about additive or multiplicative opposition. Speaking as a philosopher, I'd have more sympathy with the 0 and infinity answers, in the sense that existence is opposed to non-existence, and the one is opposed to the many.


GTB

Makes sense to me. Seems like Mr Wilson is fairly smart.

that makes me feel rather smug

you may then feel smug.

In the above system, it would seem that secular humanism is almost precisely equivalent to catholicism on the points of advantage, which I find highly fun. It also explains why, say, nihilism isn't doing so well.

Yes, I've felt for some time that there is an obvious reason for religion/belief - something we *really* need - but it sounds so lame when you say "we're missing the moral guidance we used to get from the Church". [Hmm. Perhaps the problem is mine, and it doesn't sound lame at all...?]

From a link 'Mother of God' posted, on another discussion: "During the last century, and part of the one before, it was widely held that there was an irreconcilable conflict between knowledge and belief. The opinion prevailed among advanced minds that it was time that belief should be replaced increasingly by knowledge; belief that did not itself rest on knowledge was superstition, and as such had to be opposed." - Albert Einstein.

I would like to think it is now becoming clear that belief and knowledge are complementary in many ways. Do I detect an outbreak of rationality?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

"If they promote advantageous behaviour, or group cohesion, religious beliefs will survive."

Yes, but the behaviour dosen't have to be advantageous for the individual believers, and they certainly don't have to be advantageous for non-believers.

Thankyou, Bacchus. Naturally I meant it philosophically, as I assumed all you mathematically inclined genii had an answer prepared for it otherwise. I'm thinking about making a full blown survey, and maybe an entry about what it indicates about people's beliefs. But I know I'd never get round to it.

What is the complement of cheese, or the antithesis of a bee?

[Art: I know you could answer these questions, but please don't. I'm trying, in my simple way, to indicate that there are some questions that don't have meaningful/useful answers. Except for the Marshmallow-keeper, of course. ]

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

"If they promote advantageous behaviour, or group cohesion, religious beliefs will survive."

The necessary question is: advantageous for whom?

Advantageous to the survival of the species?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

A narrow-minded intolerance of the opinions of others provides what survival benefit to the species? Culling of the weak?

This isn't the definition of religious belief we normally use here; have I missed a change in policy?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

We're not talking about belief at the moment, we're talking about religion. They're very different things.

I think one might find that the religions which survive the next fifty years are fairly tolerant - or have left their intolerant bits behind.

Or maybe we'll have to wait a hundred years or so for that - but I think it will happen, certainly in the western world at least.