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

Hiya. I noticed a few of your threads cropping up on Ask, and popped over to your Space to find a bit more about you.

First things first - apologies for the amount of dross you have already encountered here. Religious arguments are some of the oldest conversations, and the proper, rational debates have long since degenerated into mud slinging. There are a few people left to fight the moderate corners, but most threads end up with a few hardline atheists penning the moderate Christians against the wall, which is all rather unpleasant.

I'm one of the atheists that tries to back away from the aforementioned arguments. I'm what I'd classify atheist with a small 'a' rather than an Atheist. The differentiation is mostly in my head, I think, but it's important. Back when I was a Christian the one thing that I tried never to do was evangelise, and when I found my atheism I carried that through to my current mode of thinking. People can believe what they wish.

Aaaanyway. I was going to try and answer your question that you posted in Ask. Although you asked a few questions, basically it all boiled down to 'why do you believe in the non-existence of a god?', right?

Well. *pulls up the comfy chair, and makes some .*

It's not that I don't believe in the concept of god. In fact, I do. The difference is that I believe it to be an entirely human construct. God(s) exist, but only inside the heads of those who want to use them. I don't mean this as an insult, by the way.

I can't prove any of this, of course, but I'll have a go.

I'll try to start with an example. In early days Yahweh was a war god, and there were times when he gave his people vicories and times when He turned His back. Yes, perhaps his people turned away from the teaching and that's why they lost. Equally, perhaps it was simply that they stopped believing that their god could save them once they had turned from the teachings. This made them easier to conquer. Once they were overtaken the will to fight became a creed to follow, and they once again had the strength to prevail.

People who believe in something tend to try harder. Those who have a purpose in life are more likely to do something useful with it; a god, among other things, can give that purpose.
It's also there as a mental guide; when you feel alone a god can be there to comfort you, and it gives you a moral ideal to strive for. With a cultural god developed over time, it's also a guiding stick in how to conduct yourself within the society.

So gods have their uses. Trouble is, once you start viewing them as such it becomes hard to actually put your faith in them. You don't believe that a spade does the digging once you see how it works; it's just a tool (bad analogy but I'm full of cold. ).

In terms of day to day impact in my life I find that I try to operate with many Christian values- forgiveness, love, thinking of others. My motivation for this doesn't stem from being either a) told to do it or b) hoping to achieve a better afterlife/escaping a hell. I don't think we were created for a purpose, and I don't think humanity has a destiny to fulfil. That shouldn't stop us from trying to achieve, however!

I take great comfort from believing that when I die, I die. I don't have a concept of a soul. When my brain stops and cannot be revived, that'll be it. So what I do now, how I live, is the most important thing.


Okay, so that's me in a nutshell. Now I hope to ask you a few questions of my own to see what you believe. I find belief fascinating. One day, if I can, I hope to study Theology in a proper setting rather than just reading the odd book and having debates like this.

Firstly, a few questions about your values. Forgive my ignorance if the answers are obvious.


* 1. Absolute truth is a universal constant.
Um, what is absolute truth? Like mathematics? I would love for the Grand Unified Theory to be true, because I love the elegance of mathematics and the way it models the universe

Universal constant = Absolute truth.

Okay. So we've got a universal contant - like the speed of light in a vacuum. It doesn't change, as far as we can tell. That's fine. Absolute means 'cannot change' and truth means 'proven to be correct', right?

Hmm, I think it's not that your statement isn't correct, more that I don't understand what you're trying to say with it. Are you saing that a religious belief can be an absolute , proven truth?



* 2. For all intents and purposes, the observable Universe exists, and must be treated as real.

Yeah, that'll do me. I've no wish to discuss what may or may not be real, because I don't think it helps.

* 3. The Universe, in the midst of it's apparent chaos, is orderly and predictable.
Hmm, I know that Chaos Theory can being order to what appears to have none, but at the same time I would hate to say that the universe is inherently ordered. I'd like to think it so because, as I said earlier, I love elegance. That, however, is a wish and not a proven fact. Then again, I don't know much about Chaos and such. I'm a clarinettist!

* 4. The scientific discipline, as follows logically from the above statements, is limited to making observations based on the observable Universe.
That'll do me.


Right, onto the next bit, the cincher- what do you believe?

Which deity do you believe in? I assume Christianity, but I don't know what RLDS is, I'm afraid, and I'd rather hear it from you than from Wikipedia or somesuch.

Where does your god live? I'm presuming not in a literal place, like the centre of the sun, but I was trying to be broad. If you have a concept of heaven, what's it like? Do you have a concept of hell? Any other place?

What are your views on the afterlife, if any?

How does your religion impact your life? What values do you try to bring about?



That's about all off the top of my head. Hope you didn't mind me going on a bit; I've got the day off on holiday and it was just the thing to get my teeth into whilst I had the time.


Hope h2g2 hasn't pushed you away, and we see more of you in the future.

Regards,


Vip

OK, um, I have a very limited time at the moment so if I don't have time to really respond to this message today I would at least like to say that I really appreciate the calm and reasonable attitude at the beginning of your post (haven't finished reading the whole thing yet but I thought I should say that in case I run out of time and have to leave before I finish)

"Um, what is absolute truth?"
In the real Universe, unlike the fictional one by Adams, this is the real Ultimate Question. And it's very complicated to answer.

"Like mathematics? I would love for the Grand Unified Theory to be true, because I love the elegance of mathematics and the way it models the universe

Universal constant = Absolute truth.

Okay. So we've got a universal contant - like the speed of light in a vacuum. It doesn't change, as far as we can tell. That's fine. Absolute means 'cannot change' and truth means 'proven to be correct', right?"
Right.

"Hmm, I think it's not that your statement isn't correct, more that I don't understand what you're trying to say with it. Are you saing that a religious belief can be an absolute , proven truth?"

This merely says (or implies) that if a religious belief is true, it is absolutely true. What constitutes proof isn't even on the table at that point, it merely establishes that that which is true is universally true and doesn't change. Things don't become true when they're proven. (Or in the reverse, Things aren't false until proven true) We may treat them that way, but in fact, that which is true is true whether we know about it or not. Is that making sense or am I stumbling over it too much?

"Yeah, that'll do me. I've no wish to discuss what may or may not be real, because I don't think it helps."

Yeah, that one mainly deals with conspiracy theorists. It says, "We may be living in the Matrix, but for all intents and purposes, let's assume we're not." I think that's only reasonable.

"Hmm, I know that Chaos Theory can being order to what appears to have none, but at the same time I would hate to say that the universe is inherently ordered. I'd like to think it so because, as I said earlier, I love elegance. That, however, is a wish and not a proven fact. Then again, I don't know much about Chaos and such. I'm a clarinettist!"

Really, all that says is the basic assumption that all scientists make, that correct experiments get repeatable results. I may have phrased it so it goes deeper than it needs to. A simpler phrasing could be better, because all I really mean to say there is that the Universe normally behaves in predictable ways. (Order and predictability are both very close words to the concept I am thinking of)

OK I'm not done answering all the stuff you brought up by a long shot but I'm out of time for today. I'll get back to it ASAP. Later!

"It's not that I don't believe in the concept of god. In fact, I do. The difference is that I believe it to be an entirely human construct. God(s) exist, but only inside the heads of those who want to use them. I don't mean this as an insult, by the way. smiley"

I'm not insulted but I, of course, don't agree.

"I can't prove any of this, of course, but I'll have a go.

I'll try to start with an example. In early days Yahweh was a war god, and there were times when he gave his people vicories and times when He turned His back. Yes, perhaps his people turned away from the teaching and that's why they lost. Equally, perhaps it was simply that they stopped believing that their god could save them once they had turned from the teachings. This made them easier to conquer. Once they were overtaken the will to fight became a creed to follow, and they once again had the strength to prevail.

People who believe in something tend to try harder. Those who have a purpose in life are more likely to do something useful with it; a god, among other things, can give that purpose."

That may be true, as far as it goes ...

"It's also there as a mental guide; when you feel alone a god can be there to comfort you, and it gives you a moral ideal to strive for. With a cultural god developed over time, it's also a guiding stick in how to conduct yourself within the society.

So gods have their uses. Trouble is, once you start viewing them as such it becomes hard to actually put your faith in them. You don't believe that a spade does the digging once you see how it works; it's just a tool (bad analogy but I'm full of cold. smiley )."

I don't agree. I have no use for a God who is not objectively real. Jesus said, "The truth will set you free" - even people who don't acknowledge anything else Jesus said often acknowledge that. A lie is a prison.

"In terms of day to day impact in my life I find that I try to operate with many Christian values- forgiveness, love, thinking of others."

Well, that's a good thing.

"My motivation for this doesn't stem from being either a) told to do it or b) hoping to achieve a better afterlife/escaping a hell."

I agree that neither of those would be the best reason for obedience.

"I don't think we were created for a purpose, and I don't think humanity has a destiny to fulfil. That shouldn't stop us from trying to achieve, however!"

So, life has no purpose, but we should behave as though it does? We should delude ourselves?

"I take great comfort from believing that when I die, I die. I don't have a concept of a soul. When my brain stops and cannot be revived, that'll be it. So what I do now, how I live, is the most important thing."

I hope you aren't taking this the wrong way, but seems that seems like a tremendously sad and pointless lifestyle to me.

"...this is the real Ultimate Question."
Okay, I was just checking in case we had a different opinion. And yes, I'd say it's very hard to answer. But what makes you think it is be a universal constant? Why can't it be complicated? Until we know more about the Question, how can we predict the Answer?

"... if a religious belief is true, it is absolutely true."
Yup, that's fine. It's like discovering something- we didn't invent metal, we discovered it. It was already there. Although, if we prove something it then won't be a belief, it'll be a fact, because belief implies something unproveable.

"So gods have their uses. Trouble is, once you start viewing them as such it becomes hard to actually put your faith in them."
I don't agree. I have no use for a God who is not objectively real. ... A lie is a prison.
I also don't have a use for a god who isn't objectively real. That's why I don't believe in a god.

The gods have their uses for those that believe in them. That belief can have a tremendous impact on people that believe, and, usually, a positive effect. But, once you stop viewing gods as a real phenomenon, their value is lost.

Again, it's hard to word this without it sounding like an insult. I have admiration for people who can carry a faith. In the past, I described myself as a 'reluctant' atheist. But in recent years I discovered that I do believe in something- me and my value to the world I live in. It just doesn't involve a god in any way.


"I don't think we were created for a purpose, and I don't think humanity has a destiny to fulfil. That shouldn't stop us from trying to achieve, however!"
So, life has no purpose, but we should behave as though it does? We should delude ourselves?
Sorry, I think I worded that badly- I think I mean that that shouldn't stop us from trying to achieve purely for achievement's sake. There might be no point to me learning a new piece of music as it's unlikely I can ever perform it now, but I can still achieve the goal I set out to reach. But I think that's the key- I choose my purpose in life. That's my freedom.

"I take great comfort from believing that when I die, I die. I don't have a concept of a soul. When my brain stops and cannot be revived, that'll be it. So what I do now, how I live, is the most important thing."
I hope you aren't taking this the wrong way, but seems that seems like a tremendously sad and pointless lifestyle to me.
It's been said to me before, no worries there m'dear. I think I'd be more suprised if, after one conversation you could see what I see in that.

Yup, it's pointless. Like the previous point, there is no purpose in my life. There's no overarching purpose to humanity, and what I do doesn't matter, cosmically speaking. What a relief!

But look at all the people I can touch, the things I can write and say and do and create. What makes life and conciousness special is that we are aware of who we are, and the awareness of others.

Making people happy, furthering human knowledge (and my own for that matter), building something for my children, hell, having children at all- these are just some of the things that make life have meaning.

I don't care if the universe, world-Mind, Source, God, exists because I don't need their imput to decide my path. Only I can choose that, based on what I see and hear and feel myself.

Or, put another way, I am more than happy to be a small fish in a gigantic pond. I have no particular wish to be important to something that's bigger than me. It always seems egotistical to want to be recognised and wanted by a god.

"I also don't have a use for a god who isn't objectively real. That's why I don't believe in a god."

What I meant by that is, I believe in a God who *is* objectively real.

"I think I mean that that shouldn't stop us from trying to achieve purely for achievement's sake. There might be no point to me learning a new piece of music as it's unlikely I can ever perform it now, but I can still achieve the goal I set out to reach. But I think that's the key- I choose my purpose in life. That's my freedom."

There's nothing wrong with independent goal-setting. But I don't understand "achievement for achievement's sake" ... I do things either as a moral obligation (for others) or for fun. (for myself) This makes me too busy to be doing something just for the sake of doing it.

"Okay, I was just checking in case we had a different opinion. smiley And yes, I'd say it's very hard to answer. But what makes you think it is be a universal constant? Why can't it be complicated? Until we know more about the Question, how can we predict the Answer?"

I think we do have different opinions on that. I see God as the answer. (Jesus said, "I am the way, *the truth* and the life") God is truth. The more we understand about God, the more of the answer we have.

"Yup, that's fine. It's like discovering something- we didn't invent metal, we discovered it. It was already there."

Yeah, and I think that's what's meant when it's said that Columbus discovered America. America was already there with people living on it, obviously, but the fact was previously unknown to Europeans.

"Although, if we prove something it then won't be a belief, it'll be a fact, because belief implies something unproveable."

I don't think I agree with you there, but it might just be a question of grammar. When I say "believe" it means "agree with, accept the truth of". Someone can present proof and you can believe what they say. Someone can merely express an opinion and you can believe what they say. One is proof, the other is faith, and yet both are believed. (or perhaps not believed) So I don't think your implied definition of the word "belief" is right.

I think the word you meant was -*"faith", And I partially disagree with you there too. I see "faith" as synonymous with "assumption". All beliefs are based on faith at some level, unless they are based on circular reasoning. When there is scientific proof, faith is still required in the validity of the source data. (Meaning, you have to assume, on faith, that your senses are telling you the truth.)

Some faith-assumptions are reasonable and others are not. I think the ones I listed on my personal space are a reasonable starting-point.

You asked why I thought truth was a constant. The answer is "Because, if it wasn't, we couldn't be (definitely) having this conversation." Unless truth is a constant, there can be no truth.

I mean, you can't say "Truth is DEFINITELY relative" - that's a self-contradictory statement.

What I meant by that is, I believe in a God who *is* objectively real.
Yup. I think this is one of those crucial points where we'll just have to agree to disagree. We both agree with the point I made, but we reach different conclusions, and always will.

But I don't understand "achievement for achievement's sake" ... I do things either as a moral obligation (for others) or for fun. (for myself) This makes me too busy to be doing something just for the sake of doing it.
I wouldn't do something unless I had a reason to, but to push the boundaries of my/human experience/knowledge is reason enough.

I see God as the answer. (Jesus said, "I am the way, *the truth* and the life") God is truth. The more we understand about God, the more of the answer we have.
Actually, I can concur with that, even with my view on gods- the more we know about gods (in my version, the way we think, I guess) the more we understand about some things. It almost certainly can't tell us how the universe was created, but it can tell us more about humanity. It's not exactly the same as your view, I know.

"...because belief implies something unproveable."
I don't think I agree with you there, but it might just be a question of grammar.
Okay, I'll go with that.

When there is scientific proof, faith is still required in the validity of the source data. (Meaning, you have to assume, on faith, that your senses are telling you the truth.)
Good point, well made.

Some faith-assumptions are reasonable and others are not. I think the ones I listed on my personal space are a reasonable starting-point.
Now we've had this discussion and we've clarified some points, I would agree that your points are reasonable, apart from 3, which I don't think necessarily matters. I have a problem with the points only because they are vague (which they have to be to incorporate a topic so broad).
It's not that they're incorrect so much not so useful. 1 is only useful if you can believe that your God is the way to understanding the question/answer/truth. So to you it's of paramount importance; to me it's of little use. Again, not being mean, just trying to explain myself a little more.

I don't understand why you don't think 3 matters. You need 3 in order to perform experiments. If the universe didn't behave in orderly and predictable ways (like, according to rules) then nothing could ever be learned from experimentation. It seems to me that without point 3, the whole basis of scientific research is undone.

Yeah, you have a point. I clarify my statement- the universe more than likely adheres to a set of rules. It might, however, be an awful lot of rules, and may not appear to behave in an orderly fashion. Which is what you mean by "...in the midst of it's apparent chaos...", I guess.

"the universe more than likely adheres to a set of rules"

I don't see why you think it might not ... seems pretty clear to me that it does.

Hmm, you know the way some people want to argue that what we see may not be real, it could all be a hallucination etc. etc.? I think I'm the same in this situation. Quite why I can accept what I see as real for the purposes of argument and not this point, I don't know.

I'll accept that, as far as we can tell, the universe adheres to rules, however complicated they may appear.

"I'll accept that, as far as we can tell, the universe adheres to rules, however complicated they may appear."

well that's really all point 3 is supposed to be about. I might want to rephrase it along the lines of what I just quoted you saying ... but I'm gonna think about it some more first