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

I was thinking about commenting but I think GTB said everything I was thinking about saying (and much more besides). Nice post GTB.

(Just thought I'd change the subject... My optical nerves were complaining that every post since my joining contained "New Member!" as its subject header. This subject is much daffier.)

Oh, yes, and here's where I contribute to the conversation...

Er... Drugs = God.

And by 'drugs' I mean 'Tums.'

Tum, tum-tum tum, TUUUUMS!

"Chair = God"; I can work with that.

psychocandy, I fear you and I may have begun to circe each other, semantically. I was merely disagreeing with your assertion that "the sincerity or behavior of [a religion's] adherents actually has very little to do with [that religion's] 'truthfulness' or reality". To wit: I think there does exist a positive correlatuion between truthfulness of certain beliefs and practice of good behavior. I think that those who reject dogmatic assertions of the rightness of one philosophy and the wrongness of others are also unlikely to become militant about their views, for example.

That there exist well-behaved religious people, well-behaved atheists, poorly-behaved religious people, and poorly-behaved atheists, I would not dream of contesting. That the first two are well-represented in this forum, is a matter of pride for me, and not one of doubt. I don't think that the dichotomy between theism and atheism correlates with the one between being a decent person and a selfish prig - at all.

Remember, I don't dispute that some atheists are correct, only that some theists are not also correct. I think that Humanistic Empiricism, as a belief system, is a dandy one (provided it left out the anti-theism malarkey). I just don't reject an enlightened pursuit of religion either - it's led to too much good stuff. The bad stuff - that's another matter, well worth discussing. I don't find its root in belief in God, but in other places that I've already named. God isn't your enemy, he's just often associated with it, by manipulative assholes.



>>Rudest Elf?: And what would you like to add to a curriculum that hasn't yet been specified?<<

Nothing. Well, perhaps more mathematics. I think it's terribly good for kids, when it's taught well. Education should be completely secular. I will still raise my children to be open to however the universe chooses to reveal its secrets to them, whether or not it makes sense according to the scientific method. Maybe they'll all end up in jail for belief in fairies; I dunno. Maybe I'll be proud of that.

When I said "is it enough?", besides quoting Maude, I was wondering about those who drink the cup of secular education to the dregs, and are still thirsty for something that secularism doesn't provide. What do you do with them?


GTB

Psychocandy (post 7261):

P-C (post 7262):

Psychocandy (post 7263):

P-C (post 7266):

Psychocandy (post 7284): <...P-C's assertion that nearly everyone alive is addicted to some kind of drug>

Please do not post this lie again. I asked you once not to, and you have just come back and done it again. Enough.

I don't want this to turn into a fight, but I will not be lied about. I can make a fool of myself without your help, thank you.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

[If]

Agreed. Its truthfullness or reality are almost completely irrelevant, as far as I can see. I think you have hit the nail on he head: it is the "behavior of its adherents" that allows us to make a sensible assessment of the worth of their religion.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Ah...various interesting points.

>>I was attempting to describe something that already exists, namely the teachings of Jesus, Buddha, Lao-Tsu, and Malaclypse the Younger, as I understand them, which is probably not very well at all.

Hmmm. Yes, out of the writings/reported words of many religious thinkers, you can cherry pick bits that an atheist will agree with. However...either they come with other superstitious baggage, or the baggage gets added by confused adherents later on. Jesus' sermon on the mount is held up by some as a paradigm for socialism...but he said a lot about God in that speech too. Buddha was pertty darn close to an atheist...but his followers (if not him) go with nonsense about reincarnation...and the practices of Buddhist monks are probably unnecessary. Similarly Lao-Tse. Leave it out with the coins and yarrow stalks, already! And I'd need to see some good evidence for the existence of 'Chi'. The difficulty is that to believe in the superstitious stuff, we have to abandon our empirical faculties...and this leaves us unfit to judge anything else.

>>...problem with...replacing religion with Humanistic Empiricism...the aim is to get people to be good...

Well, yes. And pragmatically, if I thought religion was the way to go, I'd bite the bullet and, as a good Jesuit, swallow the necessary fiction. One might conceive of a society guided by the sort of 'Good Religion' that P-C talks about. Problem is...religion has a pretty poor track record, hasn't it? Historically, good intentions have always, always been perverted. This is because of something inherent in religion. Even at its best, one is allowed to suspend disbelief about the superstitious bits. Thus the bar is lowered for what can be held to be true and reasonable and in the end, other tosh creeps in. Thus begin the horrors. (mixed metaphor back there. how can I swalllow while I'm biting a bullet?)

>...There is no god...All is god...

A clever get-out! This is redefining god to win an argument . Bishop Berkeley did more-or-less the same, and fair play to him! A3472986. Berekely continued to align himself with the Church of Ireland. The problem with this approach, though - and I guess I have the same problem with the lovely people of the Unitarian Universalist church - is that you remain in a world where anything goes: your version is only as valid as any old mystical nonsense. And - possibly as a side effect - the basic idea becomes corrupted and people start to believe in the interconnectedness of everything in some sort of Ahwen thingy - or Taoist nonsense that the universe reshapes its natural laws so that your coins point to the right page of the I Ching.

I'll accept, though, that religious udeas develop over time. I'ts no longer obligatory to believe in god as a white-bearded figure - or even in an interventionist god. Yesterday the Catholics announced that it's not necessary to regard the bible as scientifically or historically accurate - and in the CofE, belief in a divine Jesus has been pretty much optional for many a year. It has been said that 'All religions aspire towards atheism.' The problem is...until you're prepared to throw the ickle baby Jesus out with the bathwater and embrace atheism...you've no chance of getting to what you're aiming at! Religion gets in the way. Rationality helps. Let's teach it!

>IMHO, the aims of the 'religion' you begin to describe would be better served through an education system that gave due priority to pragmatic matters - this would include learning to live with each other (and oneself).< (RE)

>>I don't disagree with such an educational system. I ask though - is it enough?<< (GTB)

>And what would you like to add to a curriculum that hasn't yet been specified?< (RE)

<> (GTB)

With respect, GTB, you haven't provided a serious answer to my question....because you can't.

What you can tell us, though, is exactly what it is that cannot be covered by a revamped education system.

>>[If]

>>Agreed. Its truthfullness or reality are almost completely irrelevant, as far as I can see. I think you have hit the nail on he head: it is the "behavior of its adherents" that allows us to make a sensible assessment of the worth of their religion.


No...because if we allow the Good peoples' untruths, we also give licence to the Bad ones'.

I see your point, Ed, but I still don't think the apparent teachings or beliefs of a religion are what we should judge it by. Pragmatically and empirically, the only thng that matters is what the members of religion X do out here in the real world. If they think they do it because the moon is made of cheddar and President Bliar is a gift from God, so what?

What they do, what you do and what I do are what matters, surely?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Up to a point, yes...we can't force others to do good.

But...part of doing good is to fight against Bad, no? I imagine all of us here would oppose, say, islamist bombers or Christian neo-cons with great fervour. Well...I'm afraid I also reserve some fervour for the nice, fluffy superstitious, seeing superstition and irrationality as part of the root problem.

You're not bad people - but you give comfort to the enemy!

I think post 7304 an example of P-C gone mad?

>but I still don't think the apparent teachings or beliefs of a religion are what we should judge it by.<

I believe that is *all* a religion can be judged by. What they "do" in the real world is irrelevant, if they are doing it to earn the favor of/escape the wrath of an imaginary deity or deities. If I imagine that the moon is made of green cheese and the Great Moon Mouse speaks to me, I need medication, not encouragement.

And don't call me a liar. I copied and pasted your quote, word for word. Your inability to back up your argument doesn't entitle you to ad hominem attacks.

Do people use coffee and tea to help them get through life? Well...arguably coffee helps one to get up in the morning...but we're in a different ballpark to the religion/opiates question, aren't we?

Besides, to paraphrase the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers:
'Dope will get you through no religion better than religion will get you through no dope!'

Blessed be Jah Rastafari!

>psychocandy, I fear you and I may have begun to circe each other, semantically.<

GTB, I agree with you there... although, there is one small but major difference, which is that from where I'm sitting, theism *is* the very crux of the problem. I understand the difference between theism and religion, but neither reject the existence/possible existence of some divine nature/deity/fairies.

Though I will say that I'm not uncomfortable with your overall way of thinking.

>Do people use coffee and tea to help them get through life? Well...arguably coffee helps one to get up in the morning...but we're in a different ballpark to the religion/opiates question, aren't we?<

Yeah, I believe so. Religion isn't called the opiate of the masses for no reason. Okay, maybe some religious people use a morning prayer like a cup of coffee, to help them start the day... but many religious people use religion to help get them through life, avoid facing reality, much like a junkie needs a regular fix to help him/her get through life.

And thanks to Ste for grasping that my use of the word "drugs" in this context clearly meant opiates/narcotics/hallucinogenics, and not caffeine or prescription drugs. Although I suppose one could argue that a diabetic is addicted to insulin, I'd prefer not to get into that argument here.

I'll leave superstition alone for now, and concentrate on (ir)rationality.

Yesterday, psychocandy made some perjorative and untrue comments about Catholics while arguing a position of intellectual 'purity'. [Don't remember the exact words, but they don't matter anyway to what I'm saying. if I've misquoted.]

I don't revisit this to poke fun, or to indulge in personal abuse. What PC did was what we all do from time to time: acted irrationally; emotionally. This is human and normal.

If you aim to promote a belief system which is entirely rational, or even *aims* to be so, then I submit that system is not suited to real world humans.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Yep. Misquoted. I said nothing about catholics, I said christians, and what you called an "emotional overreaction" was based in fact and personal experience. I assume you did not read my response, which is fine. It's perfectly rational to be sickened (even if feeling sick is an emotional response) by the kind of actions those so-called christians in my example perpetrated on other human beings.

>If you aim to promote a belief system which is entirely rational, or even *aims* to be so, then I submit that system is not suited to real world humans.<

Why not? Are *all* human beings really incapable of handling the truth?

Untrue in every significant detail. Go back and read again. You said *some* people *USE* drugs. I responded *many/most* [use drugs]. You then accused me of saying that many/most people are *ADDICTED TO* drugs. I said no such thing, and I pointed it out. You repeated your lie. Now I am forced to explain again how I did NOT say what you said I did. Please go back, check the referenced posts, and then apologise for your lie.

An ad hominem attack is to attack the person to discredit their message. I am attacking you for putting words in my mouth (so to speak) untruthfully.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

No. Of course we are irrational from time to time. Eg...why am I about to insert the word 'hippopotamus' into this sentence? We're entitled to irrationalities which don't impact adversely upon others. Or...at least, if they do, we should be honest and apologise.

BUT...if we can't go basing a code for our interractions with others on irrationality. And we can't let the Bad get away with the idea that any actions can be justified on the basis of sincerely believed irrationality.

If you wan't to do something to me...demonstrate that it can at least be plausibly argued to be 'a good thing.'