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

>There are times when I suspect that problems will be solved only by people not being people any more.

Perhaps we should try to be people more, and pay attention to what other people (e.g. ministers, pastors, the pope, god, teachers, parents) say we should do less.

I know that I've brought this up before, and I'll reiterate again here......


Religion is at its most basic form is designed to improve the condition of the soul, to better oneself in other words. I wouldn't say that the pursuit of that goal is anything to complain about.

The problem of course comes when people fail to use their own judgement. When they focus on the written words of man so intently and narrowly that they believe they MUST be taken literaly.

Religion has changed as humanity has changed. It has grown to suit peoples needs and wants of it and I would say that that too is step in the right direction. The Christian Church of today is very different from the Church of 1500 or even 1900.

Maybe, eventually, we will reach a point where religion and humanity have grown enough that war and anger are things read about in history books.

That would be wonderful .. but it isn't likely to happen any time soon. Far future, if at all. Read David Zindel's Neverness novels - it's not a future devoid of war and conflict, but it is a far future sufficiently different to ve very intriguing. Also - they have a lot to say about god(s)

I'm going to take issue with this statement: "Religion is at its most basic form is designed to improve the condition of the soul, to better oneself in other words."

I'm not sure that this was the intent of the designers at all. Dating back to ancient times, religions were made up as a way of creating a code of laws, behavior, and ethics. The rulers *were* the gods, or at a minimum the priests, and so if the ruler said it, it was because their god told it to them.

I'm sure Moses learned these lessons well from his service to the pharaoh. He clearly kept this in mind when he climbed a mountain alone.

Religion was originally, in its most basic form, about control. I don't see that it has changed much.

Sellers,
The prodigal son returns.

I think finally we are at the heart of the matter. I don't know that I agree at all with the ida that religion was designed as a class for better citizenship, I still stand by the idea that it was designed to describe the world around us. To answer the questions of why we are here, how we got here in the first place, Heidegger's question why exist at all rather than otherwise?

But I won't disagree with the idea that the rulers were in effect the gods of the religions, in many cases the priests as well. I won't dispute that. Religion like a lot of things lays itself open for exploitation just by its nature--in the sense that you trust the leaders of the faith implicity, because you believe the fact that they have the best interests of the god in mind.


So agree and disagree, a little of both.

Religion is a mental illness. Tell them that.

In some fundamental sense, the refusal to believe in ANY religion is its own religion.

That being the case, not believing in religion is just as likely to be a mental illness.

I can accept that religion is both a way of explaining the natural world and a way of creating support for a legal code simultaneously. It does naturally fulfill both duties, and has done so from the beginning.

There are some who refuse to believe in any religion. Those are called atheists. There are also those who have examined each religion with an open mind, and found each one to collapse under logical scrutiny, but would entertain the idea of religion if they found one which worked logically and scientifically. Those are also called atheists. The trick is to figure out which type you're talking to at any given time.

I'll give you a hint... the latter group tend to be more educated on the subject of religion than just about anyone... including most theists.

In *which* fundamental sense? - refusing to believe in anything which lacks supporting evidence is entirely logical.

Choosing to believe in one specific religion, or variety of religion seems harder to explain.

If a believer considers that other religions with incompatible beliefs are wrong, that does seem to invite the accusation of arrogance, yet it also seems difficult to explain a believer considering that other religions with incompatible beliefs are as good as their own.

Of course, most believers *don't* make the choice, they're brought up with one religion, and go with the flow.

The point I was trying to make is that some people would consider the lack of any faith to be its own form of mental/spiritual sickness.

As far as your last point, you are right in the sense that a person who believes in his faith unconditionaly can seem to be arrogant. Of course seeming and being are two different things. As well as the fact that a person who believes in one faith generally has a hard time accepting the validity of other religions. I will agree with that statement also. I will also agree with the fact that people are generally raised within a religion and stay in that one, for whatever reason, multitudes I'm sure.

But I don't see where you're going with this. Are you calling me arrogant?

If anything I fall into the last catergory that Colonel Sellars devised. I haven't found any one faith that I subscribe to, but I've studied at length many different religions. As far apart (and close too, sometimes the lines blur when you dig that deep) as Christianity and Zen.

Again the point I have to make with you is that I wouldn't begrudge the faithful person, because their religion seems to work for them, nor would I expect them to begrudge me, because my search for the TRUE religion works for me.

And back to the top......


I once read a book by Frank Herbert called Dune in it there was a quote presumably from the main character's father but it may have been borrowed from other places. It goes like this

"Truth suffers from over analyzation."

When I read your statement that refusing to believe in anything which lacks supporting evidence is entirely logical, I thought to myself sure, but there are a lot of things accepted as true that when you study them they fall apart.

food for thought

Religion is a mental illness.

"some people would consider the lack of any faith to be its own form of mental/spiritual sickness"

Possibly, but *some* people would consider that the lack of any faith (or of their particular brand of faith) to be evidence of the work of the devil. That's their opinion, usually resulting from their own faith rather than from actual evidence, but it doesn't mean they're correct, however many they are, or however strongly they hold that view.


Personally, I do sympathise with people who are trying to search for the one correct faith, or the one correct faith for them. Even if there is/was such a thing, how to actually find it with confidence seems like an incredibly difficult task.
It must be particularly hard for someone trying to make a distiction between a religion (in the sense of some codified belief system), and a church (or non-Christian equivalent), where the personality and behaviour of a leader or a few members can have a huge impact.

I suspect that someone who actually has looked seriously at multiple types of faith will generally be less likely to choose one that places itself above all others than someone who just inherited a religion, (or chose the first one they came across), and more likely to generally tolerant, which I do think is a very good thing.

You'd be surprised. It's hard to make a distinction between any one religion. For my own personal edification I like to pick and choose the parts I like and discard the rest.


As far as searching is concerned....it's gratifying really. You learn so much about so many different types of people. It does make you tolerant of their beliefs however strange or odd. You never really have a true understanding of it, but you can get the idea. People devote their entire lives to one religion, I devote mine to many. But the thing I've found is that even though the beliefs are so diverse, the people all have the same thing in mind....they are for the most part there to better themselves spiritually, and I for one cannot deny them that however illogical or even foolish their religious beliefs may seem.

I read this thought once, it went something like this:

Can you see God now? No. He doesn't exist
Can you feel God now? No. He doesn't exist
Can you hear God now? No. He doesn't exist
Can you smell God now? No. He doesn't exist
Can you taste God now? No. He doesn't exist

Can you see your brain now? No. It doesn't exist
Can you feel your brain now? No. It doesn't exist
Can you hear your brain now? No. It doesn't exist
Can you smell your brain now? No. It doesn't exist
Can you taste (don't try this at home) your brain now? No. It doesn't exist

Hahaha. - The Sciolist.

I do understand that studying different religions can give insight, and often shatter dangerous illusions that can be created by the minimal and biased information about 'other' religions that is often presented through various media, but logically, if someone with a religous bent can learn from different philosophies to their own, so can someone who chooses not to believe in any divinity.

From my point of view, seeing religions as entirely human constructions, I don't have a problem with learning from what other people seem to be doing right or doing wrong, but even if I was to come across a religion with a philosophical side that agreed pretty much with the way I've come to see the world, I know I wouldn't be able to take the step of moving from general agreement to *belonging* if that involved saying I believed in anything superhuman that I didn't have solid proof of.
I wouldn't be in fear of divine retribution, but I'd feel massively hypocritical pretending to believe in anything when I didn't. Heck, I sometimes feel uncomfortable singing hymns at friend's weddings, but just about manage that, though with my singing voice, possibly I'd be better to give up on that as well.

Sciolist - have you ever had a God-ache?

I can understand that feeling. I don't sing when I find myself in church, nor do I bow my head to pray. I don't 'belong' either.

I'm respectfully quiet, and that is all.

I recently found myself in a church where they were talking about other religions. They had a Sikh there. Knowledge is found in some of the strangest places.

Maybe though, just maybe if I look long enough I'll find the one that I DO believe in.

(or maybe I'll just have to make it up myself)

I'm not sure if it counts as a religion, or a philosophy, but There seems to me to be a deal of sense in Taoism.
Though it may sound strange, I was browsing in a bookshop, and found a couple of books of comic strips of 'The Sayings of Lao Zi' by Tsai Tsi Chung, which were extremely interesting. The excellent drawings help illustrate some of the things that the translation doesn't, and allow for more vagueness and abstractness that text might do in the appropriate places.

The basics of the philosophy - tolerance, learning, forgiveness, humility, relative peacefulness (non-agression, but acceptable defence) seem like the fundamentals of most religions, and there appears to be much general wisdom, but no preachiness, and no divinity beyond nature itself, but most impressive was the sense of humour, which does seem to be one of the first casualties of dogmatic religions.

Truly funnny because if there is one religion that I have found most appealing of all of them it is the Tao.

Course Zen is so intertwined with eastern thought that I would have to give it a great deal of credance also.

Formalized religion I generally do not enjoy. But I've read quite a bit of Lao Tse and piece-mealed my way through the Tao te Ching.

I hear you on the humor bit. Some of it is wry humor at best, but never demeaning or belittling, unless that was the intent of the lesson.

That is too funny that you've gravitated to that religion of all the ones you could have shown an interest in.

Perium - I am more or less in the same place as you with reguard to religion. I think that the search for something to believe in is in many ways more signifigant than whether or not you ever really find the answer.

I like the idea of churches discussing other religions. The church that I attended(with my parents, until I stated defninately that I was not getting confirmed) was actually pretty open about that sort of thing, and I think that's actually where I get a large part of my desire to CHOSE a religion rather than fall into it. One of my favorite stories was in a sermon when I was about ten years old:

Driving on isolated roads with her family, the minister ran out of gas. She was ten or twelve years old at the time. They were miles from anywhere and would have had to walk for almost 5 hours to even find a house, so they waited in the car, hoping someone would pass who could give them a ride. After hours of waiting in the summer heat, a car with a father and a daughter pulled up. They were on their way to church they said, but they'd seen the stranded family and decided to help. They gave them a ride to a gas station and a ride back once they'd filled their gas can.
The minister's father thanked them, saying it was so lucky that they'd chosed to go to church today, offered them money in gratitude, but they refused. He protested that he's caused them to miss church, and tried to insist. The man replied, "This is church for us."

Nothing about god, nothing about rules, but they were still calling it religion.