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

Welcome to the discussion. Although I would not regard myself as even remotely interested actually being a Mormon, one of my favourite authors of science fiction and religious literature is in fact a devout Mormon, Orson Scott Card. Underneath Mormon superstition is a surprisingly astute study of the process of living happily and meaningfully, and I think people dismiss it as a cult far too readily.

Without resorting to actually debating the relative truth or falsehood of the mythology in question, I did want to point out that the story of Adam and Eve is actually an ancient Hebraic creation myth and predates the 'in the beginning god created' part of genesis by several millenia (that creation myth is babylonian in origin).

Nitzche also said, I think, 'That which does not destroy us makes us stronger' and I think there is lots of truth to the adage that suffering builds character. Of course, character is mainly measured by how well you deal with suffering, so that's a bit of a no-brainer.

Rather than asking 'why does evil exist' or 'why do bad things happen to good people' we should probably ask 'why does anything exist' and 'why do things happen at all?'. I suspect figuring those things out will answer the other questions.

God doesn't love himself, but he's trying to.

Ive never been able to get my head around 'why does anything exist' as i can't come to grips with how it physically (as opposed to any creation myth) gets started in the first place.

Getting back to Mormons, does that mean they don't believe in original sin?

Actually that brings us back to the ultimate question of life, the universe, etc, which is basically, 'why'. The answer, of course, is 'why not?'. Doug knew as much, but dressed it up a little.

I'm guessing you'll have to wait for a reply from a mormon regarding your second question, but i did think it worth mentioning as an addendum that the hebraic myth in question concerns early man's consumption of 'the fruit of the tree of knowledge of right and wrong' and thereby offers self-awareness as the reason behind human endeavour, and as the barrier between humans and ultimate reality (which is very much the view offered by zen buddhists who seek nirvana, for example). See? It all relates if you look for the meaning behind myth instead of trying to deal with it as historical fact. Ancient philosophers were no stupider than modern ones.

The 'fruit of the tree of knowledge' bit sounds like a drug reference to me, but then again drugs have a long association throughout history with religious ceremonies

Indeed, especially in mystic traditions, which is what Judaism began as. Ancient philosophers were also no less stoned than modern ones The babylonian myth, about the seven days of creation and all that, is actually REALLY deep and I highly suggest reading it while one is stoned sometime. I have a friend who uses bible pages to roll joints with (slower burning than even zig-zags) but I don't know if that helps with his understanding at all.

look up a site called "wasteland of wonders" it has an interesting analysis of the square circle/heavy rock argument

it's remarkable how much of religious belief, visions and prophesis, are based on hallucinogenics. go into the wilderness for forty days, without food, see angels, talk to God. who knows what kind of psychedelics they had then. @

Yep, an alternate way of knowing. You're closer on this one than you might think . Scientific models are based on empirical data (eg experiments) and religious models are based on intuitive data (eg hallucinations, visions, and other perceptual experiences) Two ways of knowing, each with their strengths and weaknesses. Shame there isn't a better dialogue between them.

I've always asked myself, "How is a universe with something better than a universe with nothing?" In other words, do people really make the world/universe better by just being in it? Does it matter it they do or don't? This sounds like something from The Hitchhiker's Guide...

No they don't, in fact, they believe that the 'original sin' as you call it HAD to take place for God's plan to come together. Why should we be punished for something someone else did?

Ah, so you have come seeking wisdom...

Universes don't 'contain' things, rather, they ARE the entire system of things, which is sort of out there, but reliably workable. People are a facet of that which is... you, my friend, are living proof that the universe walks, talks, breathes, thinks, dreams, etc. etc. At least, part of it does. Many parts of it do.

Everything matters. The universe didn't go to all the bother of becoming self-aware for no good reason. Indeed, on the macro scale, when time, space, and other such relative givens start to break down, causality and reason also go right out the window. So basically, here you are, and here we all are, and here it all is, and it's all just energy whizzing around through an empty void. You are. You are that which is. Your actions have consequences, and a meaningful existence is within your grasp. What else do you want from life?

That was profound... in a way...

yah it is profound but I can't take credit for it.

I'll dig up the quote and post it on my page sometime, because i can't remember for the moment who said it, but I can paraphrase, and I think it sums it up nicely.

"I do not understand why man should despair because he does not see a beard on his cosmos; by observing himself and his fellows he knows that intelligence and purpose, emotion and hope are quite real and valid parts of the universal process, and may surmise in vacuo that the universe went about achieving its current state with purpose, emotion, hope and intelligence."

Of course, the original quote said it much better, but you get the idea. A cynic, of course, can point to all the really crappy things in human nature and point out that those are part of the universal "plan" of self-actualization as well. There's a yin and a yang. But I don't have a problem with that; religions sometimes try to dress up everything about life with smiley faces, and that runs contrary to what I observe every day.

Sometimes there is. Sometimes you get someone like me who is a dyed-in-the-wool, highly qualified Chartered scientist and a firm believer too. There is no real dichotomy if you think about it deeply and openly enough, without all the clutter from both Pagan and Church groups alike.

Unfortunately Twophlag you mention my least favorite of philosophers as he has the theory of "Uber mensch and Unter mensch" IMHO this is dangerously close to racism. Nietzsche has been used by many so-called humanitarians as an excuse to CLEANSE the world of UNDESIREABLES. Please review your theology!

First of all, the fact that you don't happen to like a philosopher that I happened to quote doesn't necessarily imply that I need the 'check my theology'. You may disagree with me; I welcome it. Don't insult my intelligence by telling me what I should and shouldn't talk about.

Secondly, Christianity has been used as an excuse innumerable times to do exactly the same thing. Need I mention the Inquisitions? The destructions of the Gnostic sect? Conquistadors in South America? Or shall we go back to Judaism and reflect on King David, a man 'after god's own heart' lining the enemies of israel up before him and beheading one third of their number? Rascism? How about condemning all outsiders to social damnation because they are 'gentiles' and not jewish? As recently as a year ago, the Pope of the Catholic church was issuing decrees condemning bosnian women to bear the children of their rapists in order to preserve 'the sanctity of life'. I think it is a mistake to confuse the philosophy with what is done in the name of that philosophy (crusades, cough).

Finally, I have no problem with the idea that some people are better than others. For one thing, I would welcome genetic engineering of human beings and with liscensed parenting. Somehow people got the idea that they have the right to spawn little larval offshoots of themselves, feed them moral offal, and then foist them off on the rest of the world so that I have to wind up dealing with them eventually. Screw that. I myself would much rather be born without a genetic predisposition towards depression. I'd also like to be taller, smarter, better looking, wiser, have a faster metabolism, and have a larger penis. This would be possible with a bit of genetic tinkering. So, yes, I embrace many of Nietzche's ideas. The fact that some psychopath used those ideas to further a homocidal grudge 60 years ago doesn't change my mind about the ideas themselves. Unfortunately there are others who seem unable to tell one apart from the other. Sad.

There is no doubt that religion has created a lot of war, etc.

I wonder though whether we would just have found some other excuse for similar sort of behaviour, based on a different set of intolerance.

Its a bit depressing really

I fully intended to read through all of the entries before replying, but you made such an excellent point that I could not quite resist congratulating you here. You are aware of the fallacy of physical reality and that the fact that people like John Dillinger could walk through walls is only to be attributed to his awareness that the atoms of what is percieved as physical is relative to his awareness that those percieved atoms have vast spaces between them!
The bulk of the discussion seems to be taking the very Nordic perspective of god as an anthropomorphic creature, who gives a damn on a purely anthropomorphic level, when the quantum god can only be music, which leaves it to you to chose between creating or destroying. Music seems to be the only constant of life, the universe and everything. Whether it comes from the interactions of our "physical" beeingness, or is simply the sound of atoms pinging off each other in a random universe. There will always be entropy in a percieved physical universe, simply because there is no support for a concept of physical causality.

If you look at it that way, religion is just a way to put an ideological basis behind human behavior.
Darwinism states that the only reason any life lives is to procreat and continue the species. Now to be a victor in
darwins model, you must find some way to be better then the competition. Now what way to beat the competition,
but to get rid of it, but if that where the best plan; why hasn't life destroyed itself long ago? Does that mean
Darwins model is useless and nothing really cares about the species being caried on? Can everything be
attributed to random decisions?

Hello Rokitman
It is good to know that a hard scientist will participate in discussions of conceptual reality. As a scientist with a good grasp of quantum mechanics, you undoutably comprehend the fallacy of physical reality as immutable solidity, so you are the perfect neutral voice in the subject of reality being the creation of the expectations of those who believe in it. As you have no doubt seen, the nordic anthropomorphic theolians have controlled the thinking of the occidental world to the point that the projected physical reality is now all that they are capable of seeing.
With the chalice of science, you can now open their eyws to the ephemerality of all of these pseudophysical constructs, and help them create their own world the way it should exist for them.
Love is the law,
Mordek93