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

Hi Effers,

You're talking about the Four Horsemen. Never watched it all the way through myself.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869630813464694890
(also available to buy in high res from Dawkins site - honestly two plugs in two posts, I'm gonna start charging the guy!)

Gif

(That was a simpost)

Hi 3D,

Ah, but you know my opinion on reading things 'metaphorically'

Gif

Many thanks both for the link.

I have frequently paid visits to the National Gallery in London, and the so called religious art is truly wonderful, and yes I know it was essentially paid for and commissioned by the powerful and immensely rich religious financial structures such of the Catholic church.

My own opinion is that art of the future can be every bit as powerful and affecting because at root art is often essentially to do with the pain of loss, of knowing we are mortal, which is the fundamental crux of the human condition.

Religion as a dummy/suck for preventing looking hard in the face of the eternal void, is not the cause of great art, but feeds off the existential difficulty of looking at that full on, face on. I'm quite certain that art of equal quality, if not better, will continue to be produced in a non religious context, as is exemplified by eg the poetry of Romantic poets, who were atheists.

Hi Warner,

I've actually done some looking-stuff-up-type research.

The idea of the sun rising and setting on the Earth is not just in the Quran, it is also supported in the Hadiths:

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 421
Sahih Bukhari Hadiths: Abzur Ghifari (ra) narrated: one day Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) asked me, “Abzar do you know after setting where does Sun go?” I replied, I do not know, only Allah’s apostle can say better. Then Prophet (SA) replied, “After setting, the sun remains prostrated under Allah’s Aro’sh and waits for Allah’s command for rising again in the East. Day will come when sun will not get permission to rise again and Qeyamot will fall upon Earth”.



And for a 'scholarly translation' of the 'expanding universe' section, take a look at:



2. Quran talks about an expanding universe ?

Surah 51:47 says Wa As-Samā'a Banaynāhā Bi'ayydin Wa 'Innā Lamūsi`ūna which means:

YUSUFALI: With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of pace.
PICKTHAL: We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof).
SHAKIR: And the heaven, We raised it high with power, and most surely We are the makers of things ample.

Notice that in all the 3 most respected and used translations, NONE of them mention anything about an expanding universe. Because Surah 51:47 does NOT talk about an expanding universe !

The word that created all the controversy here is “la mu’si’un. In order to put an end to all arguments, it is important to clarify once and for all that in Surah 51:47, the word “la mu’si’un” is a word that Allah uses to describe the vastness and greatness of his power. In other words, “la mu’si’un” is used to describe Allah himself and NOT an expanding universe !

If the Quran had wanted to talk about an expanding universe, it would have used the word “noosi’uhaa”( we are expanding it). That would have prevented any arguments. But NOWHERE in the Quran do you find the word “noosi’uhaa”. Because the Quran does NOT and never talks about an expanding universe. In Surah 51:47, “la mu’si’un” is the word used to describe Allah himself and nothing else.

Simply put, there is nothing scientific or miraculous or special about Surah 51:47. Praising and exalting one’s own god is something every religion does, past, present and future.
http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/The_Truth_about_Islam



Gif

Must remember to read some Richard Holloway. He's an ex-bish with Atheist leanings who - as far as I understand it - says that Art can *replace* religion as the source of spiritual fulfilment. So Hitchens may have his chicken and his egg the wrong way around.

Expanding universes and Islam:

If you're looking for accidental scientific truth in religious beliefs...don't forget about the Dogon. A2754524

On the subject of art (specifically painting) I would be willing to put the work of the Mexican Muralists such as Diego Rivera, and more particularly IMO, David Alfaro Siqueiros against *any* religious murals in history, not excluding Michelangelo's work in the Sistine Chapel.

"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."
Einstein

Agreed upon !

And, of course, Picasso - *the* towering genius of art, Eastern or Western, since the dawn of history - was an Atheist Communist.

I'm just trying to think of some truly great religious art that has been produced since it became fairly common for non-religious art to be produced.

Hmm.

There has been a trend towards producing art which - if not religious, then at least explores religion and religious issues. Damien Hirst is the obvious example. Also Mark Wallinger.

Peter Howson found religion after a stint as a war artist in Bosnia and went from pictures of Glasgow hard cases with savage dogs to crucifixions (with Glasgow hard cases in the background).

(I'm not commenting on whether any of these is 'truly great'.)

Rothko definitely counts as religious.

Lots of people seem to like this:
http://www.glasgowmuseums.com/venue/page.cfm?venueid=4&itemid=68

(Not a big Dali fan, myself)

Ed:
"says that Art can *replace* religion as the source of spiritual fulfilment"
I don´t know how much it can replace. But, Collective Art has a sense of ritual, it offers a non cotidian space,different rules, etc., that work on our mood positively.
Religion has been a tool for artists. Religion is not the cause of art, but another of the expressive elements an artist can use.

And we ALL are artists, because we all have a way of perceiving and experimenting reality. We can communicate it through art.
Also, art, any, should help to integrate other cultures.

There´s a very interesting educational Project, MUSE, based on arts with a social end. Yehudin Menuhin, has a Foundation for that: FYME.

you see my point though, don't you Ed?

When artists were given the opportunity to do secular art, the proportion of great art that was religious dropped precipitously. In short, great religious art is great because it is great art, not because it is religious art.

Gif

My daughter just came back from work, and I asked her about the disputed word.

>>Because the Quran does NOT and never talks about an expanding universe. In Surah 51:47, “la mu’si’un” is
the word used to describe Allah himself and nothing else.<<

Actually it sounds more like 'al moosi'oon'. She has lent her arabic-english dictionary to her sister,
but she phoned her algerian friend, and without
saying which verse it comes from, and just asking what the word meant she said:

It means expanded. It's root is waa'sia, which means spacious.
I'll let you know, when I have something more conclusive, for you.

BTW, that link was AWFUL, and full of rubbish and lies
( Well I would say that, wouldn't I)

Hi Dogster

>> I don't think we have to be 'uncertain' about the knowledge status of gibberish - we KNOW that it's gibberish.<<

Ah, I see where you're at. Of course I agree.

You might say this is a difference between packaging and content.

The statement, 'God exists', (package) *is* meaningless gibberish, and we know it is. We may, however, assume it contains meaning (content) for the person who utters it

As it stands, the statement does not form an arguable position and may be dismissed. Like the runner who does not even attend the race, the person who makes the statement loses by default.

But we cannot with certainty determine the value, or even presence, of any content within the package, which at this level remains in its wrapping of obscure non-sense.

At the simple statement level, it is neither true nor false. It remains, from our perspective, in a state resembling Schroedinger's unfortunate feline.

The statement, 'God exists' is not simply dubious, but functionally void. It is meaningless gibberish only, and we non-believers know it as such. Because it is insufficient as argument it is not amenable to debate.

'God exists', is a meaningless statement, and is not a premise.
We cannot be uncertain/agnostic about it, but we may be so with respect to any putative content.

Is that better?

warner:

'It means expanded. It's root is waa'sia, which means spacious.'

'expanded' does not mean 'expanding'. I would argue that in important ways, 'expanded' is a synonym of 'spacious' rather than of 'expanding'. 'Expanded' has a connotation of 'completion' due to it's being a *past* participle. 'Expanding' has a connotation of a continuing action. We talk of the Expanding Universe, not of the Expanded Universe.

In any case, even if the word in question *can* mean 'Expanding', the point still stands that until the last quarter of the 20th century, no one seemed to make note of that connotation when translating the Quran, and so, it was certainly not by any means the primary meaning of the word in classical Arabic.

Taliesin,

"The statement, 'God exists', (package) *is* meaningless gibberish, and we know it is. We may, however, assume it contains meaning (content) for the person who utters it... 'God exists', is a meaningless statement, and is not a premise. We cannot be uncertain/agnostic about it, but we may be so with respect to any putative content."

OK so I think we're almost in agreement except that I'd go a little further and say that I don't think there is any content for the person that utters it. I think we often trick ourselves into thinking that we have a coherent idea when really we're just confused because we are accustomed to mistake the things that surround a meaningful idea (their verbalisations, hypothetical consequences of the idea, etc.) with the idea itself.

Another way of putting it: they want to mean something by "God exists" but they don't. And they could change what they're trying to say with "God exists" but then it wouldn't mean what they wanted it to (e.g. peanuts instead of God).

Basically, it just seems to me that the word agnostic feels wrong when there is no way even in principle that I could be convinced to feel any different to how I already do.

>I'm just trying to think of some truly great religious art that has been produced<

anhaga the National Gallery in London has one of the world's great collection of 'religious art'; the Rennaissance stuff being in the Salisbury wing, but there's plenty more later stuff in the rest of the gallery. I find it truly wonderful and I can see what Hitchens is driving at. Also much contemporary art by atheists mightn't exist without the religious tradition eg work of Francis Bacon...not to mention recent ironic art by British contemporary artists.

I think there is an argument to be made that the religious sensibility is analogous to the artistic one...but it doesn't mean you have to literally believe in God. But maybe knowing some folk do, sometimes helps with the impetus. Having something to rebel against should never be underestimated as a driving force...without it think of all the wonderful threads we would be without on h2g2...

Dogster

>>almost in agreement<<

I think we're as close as 'dammit is to swearing'

Most believers I've encountered seem to believe that they believe, but in fact have no idea what it is they think they believe in. Most of them don't seem to know what the hell they are talking about, yet they seem to expect me to treat them as if their laughably absurd utterances actually contained meaning.

For example: To such a person, the word 'God' is a magic word, having a purely emotional value or importance, but is devoid of functional, cognitive significance or explanatory content. If you ask them to define 'God', you'll most often get a blank stare, followed by something along the lines of, 'You know, 'God'. Like it says in the Bible'

So, I think that although there is some kind of content for the person uttering the statement, 'God exists', that content is not amenable to rational discussion. For the believer, 'God' is not a coherent idea, but a personally evocative semantic label which associates with a whole host of vague, but powerfully emotional, concepts and notions typically to do with early childhood conditioning, social expectations and group support. It's *almost* the verbal equivalent of the stick figure, insofar as it has symbolic meaning.

The word 'agnostic' feels wrong to me, too. However, I can accept when it's appropriately used adjectivally, and thus allow the theist every opportunity to posit a meaningful argument. To date, I have not encountered one.

btw, here is a formal construction of the Argument from Non-Cognitivism:

1. There are three attributes of existants which concern us particularly, these being:
-- 1. Primary Attributes
-- 2. Secondary Attributes
-- 3. Relational Attributes.
2. B as well as C are dependent upon and must be related to an existant’s A in order to be considered meaningful.
3. The term “God” lacks a positively identified A.
4. Because of this, the term “God” holds no justified A, B, or C. (From 2)
5. However, an attribute-less term (a term lacking A, B, and C) is meaningless.
6. Therefore, the term “God” is meaningless. (From 3, 4, 5)
7. Therefore, the god-concept is invalid.

From http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/argument_from_noncognitivism/ Posted by anon. Reposted here with permission